Would you like me to get you a straw so
you can SUCK IT UP?

To Foxy.

Before the conversation drowns in insults and witty comebacks between you and ALTRAV, I have to ask. Why are you so dead set against Israel Folau? Do you have a friend or family member that was part of the Tribunal hearing? Do you have a negative view of Folau that you want him to get what he deserves sort of thing?

I ask because the reasoning you give to support Rugby Australia doesn't make sense. It doesn't add up. If it is a common business practice to restrict what people say and do when they are off the clock, then there is a bigger picture problem with those businesses as well.

The rights of the common person is at stake here based on whether a business is allowed to make you sign a contract restricting what you can say or do off the clock. (The only time this should be a concern is if there are drugs involved and they fail a drug test, or if there is a crime they are involved in). Outside of that a business should have no rights to over throw the rights of it's employees when they hang up their uniform and go home.

I get the anger at anyone speaking out against homosexuality (among a list of other sins). I don't agree with it but I get it. I fell similarly about other topics. But anger on what he said is not enough of a reason to dismantle freedom of speech by cooperations. There is more at stake here then some homosexuals pretending to be offended. There's more at steak then loyalty to the homosexual lobby.

Foxy,

Are you implying that large corporations have the right to use their financial power to 'persuade', say, sporting bodies, to penalise someone for their views ?

So Qantas can muscle Rugby Australia to roll Folau ?

What, the 'Left' is sucking up to Big Business now ?

Joe

NNS,

For me neither Folau himself nor his personal
faith is an issue.

What I was doing was presenting the facts of this case
as an employment code of conduct dispute under the
current law as it stands. I also stated that perhaps
the law needs to be reviewed which I believe the
government is proposing to do.

As for ALTRAV?
Usually I don't bother reading his rants. But when
he crosses the line I occasionally do respond
tongue-in cheek. Though not very often.

Joe,

What's being discussed is the law as it currently
stands on an employment code of conduct dispute.
I'll leave the rest, regarding Qantas, et cetera,
up to you to sort out.
It doesn't interest me.

Dear Loudmouth,

You ask;

“Are you implying that large corporations have the right to use their financial power to 'persuade', say, sporting bodies, to penalise someone for their views ?”

Are you saying they should not be able to exercise their financial power? This is exactly why they would have delivered sponsorship to the game in the first place. If Rugby Australia had not gone with a strong platform of inclusion would the money have been offered in the first place.

Now I am all for taxing corporations more and governments delivering funds to sporting codes. I am constantly banging on about the issue of corporate control and undue influence within our sports. I do not agree they should control who gets selected for the national squad and that holds in the case of Falou. So you have me on that point.

But if you feel corporations should stump up without the option to withdraw that funding then you have to make a lot stronger case than what you have thus far.

Hi Steele,

No, in an ideal world, sport would be played with no need for corporate funding (and therefore pressure), but by public funding. And no advertising at all.

A bit too much wishful thinking ?

Joe