Dear Foxy,

«I don't understand your logic.»

Which part exactly?

That the organisation is prejudiced (against certain Christians who believe otherwise)?
That the organisation is intolerant (they don't accept employees from certain churches which have different values, even when they can perform their job perfectly)?
That the organisation has no spine (bowing down to popular pressure instead of standing by their own principles)?
That this should not be a matter for the state and its laws?
That customers ought to avoid such organisations?

Or was it the logic in my reply to David F. which you did not understand?

«The point is that he sought simultaneously to be the
public spokesperson for 2 sets of values that are
directly opposed and can't be reconciled.»

So what? Nothing stops the spokesman from making very different, even opposing, statements depending on which organisation he is speaking for at the time. That is "diplomacy" and some professionals, such as ambassadors, do similar things all the time and I assume that upon accepting this job, Thorburn willingly agreed to act diplomatically despite all the discomfort it might have caused him.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Thorburn felt that he could not continue to serve in
his dual roles as Chair of the Essendon Football Club
and as Chairman of the City on the Hill. The Board
respects Thorburn's decision.

The Essendon Club President, Dave Barham said on behalf
of the football club:

"This is not about vilifying anyone for their personal religious
beliefs but about a clear conflict of interest with an organisation
whose views do not align with our values as a safe, inclusive,
diverse, and welcoming club for our staff, our players, our
members, our fans, our partners, and the wider community."

I have nothing more to say on the subject.

Hi Yuyutsu,

I stated that I don't understand your logic because
you stated that:

"The club is prejudiced, intolerant, and has no spine."
"And this is a good reason for the club's supporters
and spectators to forsake that club in droves."

To me that makes no sense when the club is welcoming and
inclusive and does not link abortion rates to the
Holocaust or consider LGBTQI people an abomination.

Dear Foxy,

My logic was in the most general sense, that a club which is prejudiced, intolerant, and spineless - to such an extent that they are willing to kick out (or whatever you like to call it) a good employee which did nothing wrong, is not worthy of being supported.

I think that for 99.99% of Australian people, welcoming and inclusiveness are taken for granted, abortion is not on their mind except when they actually need it and homosexuality and gender-change are just a no-big-deal facts of life. I can't see why a sports-club should, instead of concentrating on sports, make any fuss of these or even give them a mention - to me this behaviour seems inauthentic and looks more like using the above as an excuse for political stirring.

Hi Yuyutsu,

The club did not kick Thorburn out.
It was his choice to resign. He was looking
to revive his public profile. He was given
the choice of staying with his church or
starting a new career at Essendon and it a choice
that should be respected.

Dear Foxy,

So the club added a new condition of employment, just one day after employing Thorburn, an unexpected and very difficult condition which a reasonable person is very unlikely to accept.

As I said, call it whatever you want, why should I care? I am not looking at legal technicalities anyway because I believe that the state and its laws should not be a party to the private affairs between employers and employees.

«and it a choice that should be respected.»

I believe that we have a full consensus here that Thorburn should be respected.
The question being, should the club also be respected?