Religious - Contractual Conundrum

Lets leave the entire Folau issue alone for now..... I would like people's opinions on the following scenario, because whilst I have always said that the recent Folau issue to me, is not about religious beliefs, but contractual, let's turn the tables a bit with the following scenario.

People are saying that the contractual stipulations should never have prevented Folau from stating his opinion or posting on religious grounds, and that it is freedom of speech...…and that they are taking away his right to freedom of speech, and he should never have been forced to not post this religious information, and that he also could or should never get terminated for doing exactly this.

Don't compare this to Folau, treat it as the actual events happened, as per below....obviously, hypothetical

David Pocock decides this year, that he is an atheist.

In January 2019 Pocock posts on Facebook to his 3 million followers...….. that Jesus was gay.... and that he had to have been gay, and that the bible conclusively proves this beyond any reasonable doubt, and Christians need to accept that this is what happened.

Even if it is complete and utter rubbish to anyone else, this is Pocock's personal belief, and nothing will sway his opinion

In January, Pocock gets warned by the ARU, to stop posting things like this on social media, because it "could" turn supporters away from supporting him as a rugby player, but more importantly, it could turn people away from supporting Australian rugby, and it is a unnecessary problem that they could do without.

Pocock says fine, and apologizes.

In April, Pocock posts on Facebook to his 3 million followers,  that Jesus was caught in a garden with a young boy, hardly clothed, and because of that, he must have done some very dirty deeds with this young boy, and that Christians cannot dispute this..... because the bible itself..... says that this actually happened.

Australian rugby say to Pocock that his posts are negatively affecting him as a player..... as well as Australian rugby itself, and that he needs to cease this behavior immediately because they cannot risk the potential damage that this could do to Australian rugby nationally and internationally because the ARU have a massive Christian support base. 

The disciplinary meeting / hearing is recorded, with the express warning to Pocock, on record, that should he ever post anything like this again, or continue with this behavior, which would be his 3rd offense, he could face dismissal.

Pocock says sorry, it won't happen again.

In July, Pocock posts another very degrading post about Jesus and Christians, telling all Christians how incredibly stupid they are, to believe the bible, because if they believe the bible, then they must also support all gays, because Jesus was gay.

Australian rugby hold a disciplinary hearing and find him guilty and dismiss him with immediate effect

Some questions:

Are some posters here saying that Australian rugby can never have requested that Pocock not post religious stuff to begin with, because that is Pocock's individual right to freedom of speech or expression, and that it supersedes any other law or rule or contractual obligation?

Are some posters here saying that there is no way at all that Pocock could ever get dismissed for this, because these are his personal religious views, which also constitute freedom of speech or expression, therefore he can never be terminated for this?

Are some posters here saying that the ARU have no rights in this whatsoever, to defend or protect their national and international brand?

Are some posters here saying that the ARU should never be worried or concerned with offending or losing the support of all their Christian supporters if they continue to keep Pocock employed?

Are some posters here saying that freedom of speech or freedom of expression, entitles anyone, to post whatever they want to, about any person, or about any topic, and never face any legal consequences?

Don't turn this into another religious rant...….. I would like this to be a decent debate, nothing more...……..I would just like to know, based on the situation above, what are your thoughts on the right of each party involved in this incident as described above...… what in your view are the rights of the ARU, and what are the rights of Pocock?

Also, in your view, are the ARU at fault, and deserve to get sued, or is Pocock at fault and deserves to get dismissed?

Atheism is not a religion so Pocock would be speaking on his own behalf.Folau speaks for Biblical Christianity.......established for over 2000 years.

Each country has it's own laws so we can only speculate on Australian law.Why read Folau's posts if you're anti his Christian stance.I'm sure he's had much more to say about Christ than this before.I won't read Pococks drivel so not bothered at all by cyberspace tripe.

David Pocock is still playing rugby for the  Brumbies - when not injured - and even for Australia - so what was the effect of his :"dismissal with immediate effect"? 

It is a fictional scenario dumb Mike, it has not actually happened- merely a hypothesis.

Well you will have an opportunity to tell Him to His face when you rise to the judgment throne of Christ. 

My guess is you will be as silent as a mouse. 

Rooiperv has a big mouth spewing sewerage. 

"Pocock says fine, and apologizes"

You saying Folau did this? And if he did he wasn't un der duress?

DA, what you seem to be missing here is that no one is saying that there should not be limits to free speech...but quoting the Bible should not be one of those limitations. 

Why can't you accept that saying what he did is not hate speach?...just like you banging on about how you detest Christianity isn't hate speach either. Shark's posts about Christians being fed to hungry predators in the Colosseum isn't hate speech either...extremely bad taste, but not hate speech....now imagine the outcry if Folau posted a pic of gays being fed to lions for being gay.

You believe there is no God. I believe the opposite.  You are offended by my belief and are allowed to harp on about it ad infinitum, but Folau should STFU?

Holding a mir row up to these chappies could give the shock of their lives. 

Basically the sodomites want their lifestyle and they don't want to go to hell.You cannot go for swim and not get wet,sorry choice is yours.

They not only want their lifestyle they want to shove it down our throats, want applause for it, want to shut up anybody opposing it and want our children. 

Now it's about getting their critics shut down and fired. 

They have no idea what they are doing ri ling up normal people as they are doing. 

"DA, what you seem to be missing here is that no one is saying that there should not be limits to free speech"

More assumptions from you again Db...… do you ever stop with this behaviour?

You don't even have a clue as to why or what my reasons are for posting this scenario, yet you maintain that I am missing something?

No.... you are clearly missing something..... not me, , but you are blind to it....again....for instance

Mike has stated twice now, on this forum, that free speech and freedom of expression cannot get you terminated from your job, and he "knows" this because of his knowledge and understanding of "universal" labour law.

I have challenged him twice on this specific issue, over these comments of his, but he refuses to respond to me, therefore I posted this scenario here.

Mike, now also thinks that this was a real situation about Pocock...….. Fuck me....I say nothing.

"You saying Folau did this? And if he did he wasn't under duress?"

Where did I say that Folau did this?...… FFS Db, I gave my own fictional story here and I said don't make this into a religious rant, give me your opinion based on the facts of this specific case...…..simple, why are you twisting this to suit your own argument..?

"Why can't you accept that saying what he did is not hate speach?...just like you banging on about how you detest Christianity isn't hate speach either"

Speak shit as per usual Db...…. where have I ever said that this was hate speech?..... I have continually and steadfastly said that this is not a religious issue for me, but a contractual one.....hence the heading of this thread as well...…… but you keep accusing me of horseshit Db...….. just look at the assumptions and accusations in this one post of yours alone, against me..... Also, where have I ever once said that I detest Christianity?...…. post one simple example of this...….. you barefaced liar.

"You are offended by my belief and are allowed to harp on about it ad infinitum, but Folau should STFU?"

Really, where have I ever said that I am offended by your beliefs or Christianity itself...… post one single example?

Where did I ever say that Folau should STFU?...… post one single example?

You are just being a sanctimonious prick Db, to try and make a point, because all these accusations against me are barefaced lies, nothing more...….. I didn't expect you to sink this low to try and prove some stupid point, which doesn't exist

To the rest of you who responded...…..thank you, but it's sad how it became a religious tirade.........stop making this about Christianity or Atheism, the scenario was put forward to question whether or not Pocock could be dismissed for his actions...… not his religious beliefs.....or his non-religion...….not for anything else at all, other than, did he go against his employers direct instructions....and could he be dismissed for it, if he did so.

For a guy who seems to know my and other people's inner most thoughts, on a regular and consistent basis, despite always consistently getting it wrong...…….. you are awfully quiet on this thread here now Draad……….

I'm still waiting for you to clearly illustrate to me what I am "missing" here, and what I have in fact actually said about Folau, and where I declared what he posted on social media as "hate speech"...….. or how about just your statement that I "detest" Christianity…..., or maybe even where I said that I am "offended" by your belief...…...and not the ridiculous and outrageous thumb sucking made up shit that you often post about me.

It would be so nice to get some clarity on this from you, since you are such a decent guy...……….because this seems to almost be a weekly thing with you now, posting crap,. making up all kinds of stories and posting false statements or making bullshit accusations against me............…..probably hoping me or someone else will just accept it as true.

"DA, what (((you seem))) to be missing here is that ((no one)) is saying that there should not be limits to free speech" I was wrong, Maaik seems to think so

More assumptions from you again Db...… do you ever stop with this behaviour?

You don't even have a clue as to why or what my reasons are for posting this scenario, yet you maintain that I am missing something?

No.... you are clearly missing something..... not me, , but you are blind to it....again....for instance

Mike has stated twice now, on this forum, that free speech and freedom of expression cannot get you terminated from your job, and he "knows" this because of his knowledge and understanding of "universal" labour law.

I have challenged him twice on this specific issue, over these comments of his, but he refuses to respond to me, therefore I posted this scenario here.

Mike, now also thinks that this was a real situation about Pocock...….. Fuck me....I say nothing.

"You saying Folau did this? And if he did he wasn't under duress?"

Where did I say that Folau did this?...… FFS Db, I gave my own fictional story here and I said don't make this into a religious rant, give me your opinion based on the facts of this specific case...…..simple, why are you twisting this to suit your own argument..? ((I'm not twisting this, you are taking issue Note the question marks...these were questions. You were stating a hypothetical case with Pocock, clearly to illustrate something as it would have bearing on the Folau case...hence my questions. Should I have ignored the obvious parallels just because you did not pertinently state your motive? It's glaringly obvious.

"Why can't you accept that saying what he did is not hate speach?...just like you banging on about how you detest Christianity isn't hate speach either"

Speak shit as per usual Db...…. where have I ever said that this was hate speech?..... I have continually and steadfastly said that this is not a religious issue for me, but a contractual one.....hence the heading of this thread as well...…… but you keep accusing me of horseshit Db...….. just look at the assumptions and accusations in this one post of yours alone, against me..... Also, where have I ever once said that I detest Christianity?...…. post one simple example of this...….. you barefaced liar.

"You are offended by my belief and are allowed to harp on about it ad infinitum, but Folau should STFU?"

Really, where have I ever said that I am offended by your beliefs or Christianity itself...… post one single example?

Where did I ever say that Folau should STFU?...… post one single example?

You are just being a sanctimonious prick Db, to try and make a point, because all these accusations against me are barefaced lies, nothing more...….. I didn't expect you to sink this low to try and prove some stupid point, which doesn't exist

To the rest of you who responded...…..thank you, but it's sad how it became a religious tirade.........stop making this about Christianity or Atheism, the scenario was put forward to question whether or not Pocock could be dismissed for his actions...… not his religious beliefs.....or his non-religion...….not for anything else at all, other than, did he go against his employers direct instructions....and could he be dismissed for it, if he did so.

Look, actions speak louder than words, so what I have stated regarding my perception of your views, I got from how you conduct yourself and react on certain things...I never claimed that I know it all. I might be wrong on many things and I'll eat humble pie if It comes to that, but a liar I am not. My intent is to always be truthful, especially on the internet. And contrary to what you might think, my perception and comprehension is good enough...not fool proof at all, but I trust my gut, so if you don't like my perception of yourself, you should ask yourself why...and judging by your reaction to me on this and numerous other threads, your dislike is quite significant.

1. Are you saying this thread has got nothing to do with the Folau threads at all? The parallels are all in my head?
2. Are you saying that you don't detest/despise/dislike Christianity/Christians?

LMFAO

I will put this as politely as I possibly can....

Your perception, comprehensions and gut feelings are fucked up.....period, and they have been for quite some time

It really does not get any more simple or honest than that Draad

Please answer my questions, because I did not see any answers from you......

Where did I say, even once, that what Folau posted was hate speech?..... just one instance will suffice

Where do I say I detest Christians?...…. just one instance will suffice...….

I don't like the fact that you make up lies about me, and make up other daily bullshit about me.....but do I detest you... hell no.

Where have I ever said that you or any other Christian on this forum offends me because of their beliefs?...….. just one instance will suffice...…anything at all even remotely close.

"Are you saying this thread has got nothing to do with the Folau threads at all? The parallels are all in my head?"

This is what my last few paragraph's said in my opening post.

"Don't turn this into another religious rant...….. I would like this to be a decent debate, nothing more...……..I would just like to know, based on the situation above, what are your thoughts on the right of each party involved in this incident as described above...… what in your view are the rights of the ARU, and what are the rights of Pocock?

Also, in your view, are the ARU at fault, and deserve to get sued, or is Pocock at fault and deserves to get dismissed?"

I specifically requested feedback on the rights of each individual regarding this case, in other words, is it legal or not to dismiss Pocock...… NOT, what each one's belief is regarding religion..... I specifically stated that I did not want a religious rant because of Beeno, and possibly you, but it started slanting that way, thanks to you.

I wanted people's honest opinions on someone like Pocock who went directly against his employers instruction to not post something on social media, given he had a disciplinary hearing and was warned 3 times...… was it a fair decision on both parties...…

If the parallels in your head are pushing you in that direction, then maybe take the direction that I requested from you to begin with, and suppress that constant strong desire to make up more shit and lies about me...…. just be honest

I very specifically requested people to look at Pocock''s scenario from a contractual point of view, and not a religious point of view..... simple...…. but you cant grasp that, because you...….and only you...... know what I actually meant even though I quite clearly pointed it out to you to begin with

You have these magical powers which you might call perception, comprehension and gut feelings, which basically do SFA for you

As I said, I will try and be polite

Just curious, you have also still not bothered to comment on your buddy claiming that all non Christians on this site would prefer to sit next to a mother while she deliberately kills her 3 children in front of them

I guess you are trying extremely hard to miss that thread and post

As I said, I will try and be polite (you suck at trying to be polite.)

Just curious, you have also still not bothered to comment on your buddy claiming that all non Christians on this site would prefer to sit next to a mother while she deliberately kills her 3 children in front of them

I guess you are trying extremely hard to miss that thread and post

No, I'm not. I was busy today, but if it is like you are portraying it here, it is pure nonsense.

As for your OP, I really don't know where the line is or should be. I agree with you that an employer should be able to prescribe some public behavior, and the scenario with the fake Pocock is a bit extreme, so he should probably be fired after all that due process. He has a right to believe what he want's, but the employer have a right to protect their brand.

And yes, you are correct, and I did ignore your request not to bring in the Folau case and I jumped ahead to the obvious parallels with the Folau case because it was so obvious.

"Where did I say, even once, that what Folau posted was hate speech?..... just one instance will suffice

Where do I say I detest Christians?...…. just one instance will suffice...….

If I did not make it clear enough before. I did not say you said any of these things. I said that it was how I interpret your actions on this topic on this forum.

Ok Draad

I will try and work just a little bit on my politeness skills...... if you work extremely fucking hard on your interpretation skills...…... because they don't just suck, they are non existe nt…..

I respectfully disagree, but I will be more carefull to explain my train of thought in dealings with you. I tend to jump ahead too fast in most of these arguments. 

Haastige hond...

Sorry if I insulted you, it wasn't the intention, but I should have anticipated your reactin...not as if you didn't warn me before.

Draad

You remind me of those type of guys that constantly ask for forgiveness instead of permission...……...…. in other words, you post whatever you want to about a poster...... without knowing for sure at all, how accurate your information is, and no matter how much it could possibly be incorrect or insulting to that poster......and only if he responds and tells you what a complete and utter dick you have been...… you say sorry and move on...…. and state that you will not to do it again...….. only to do it a few days later again..... and again...…...Too funny.

I say this because you have constantly done this...… so I'm curious...…. where or when does it stop?

You are one extremely slow learner if you have not yet learnt, that jumping in with shitty and fabricated information about any poster...….. gets you into shit most of the time...… because then you need to start re-evaluating how you make your daily decisions, because most normal sane people would have learnt that very basic life lesson by now, especially if they have been burnt as often as you have, for the exact same behavior.

I did say I will try and work a bit on my politeness...…..

The "Haastige Hond" should have slowed down many moons ago......because that "Haastige Hond" is seriously fucking with your perception, interpretation and comprehension skills. 

Best of luck

Oh pipe down DA you blithering moron. The law that is above all laws is the law of the KING OF KINGS, THE LAW OF GOd

I couldn't give a hoot what some man made contract says. God requires His people to testify to His truth. End of story. 

As to your only concern being a breach of contract - please note no such thing has been proven. Secondly they appear to be saying there is nothing in the contract that applies - they claim Folau brought the game into disrepute but this can be refuted.

Further there are other laws that protect Folau.

But DA you are a huge fraud.  You detest Christianity, you applaud LGBT and fight for them daily. You are delighted Folau got fired. You are intensely annoyed he got legal funding. You also hate freedom of speech.

DA you are a hopeless long winded FRAUD and have been exposed as such. Who the heck do you think you are fooling oak! 

A child could see through this appaling  FRAUD. HAHAHAHAHA hilarious how dumb ou DA is for all his puffed up pretensions. 

Cut the BS out and admit you just love LGBT. 

Beeno, in your mind, you must honestly believe that God wants you to spread his word?

Let me just tell you the "God's honest truth"...………………... something that not even your fellow Christians on this forum will want to inform you about, because I really do believe that they just don't want to hurt your delicate feelings or jeopardize their friendship with you...…..something I really don't need to worry, stress or care about.

You are a complete and utter embarrassment to the entire Christian religion, and I will also put it on record right now in front of everyone here, that if they agree with the way you want to "Spread the word of God", with your fellow posters, then they are also a complete and utter embarrassment to the Christian religion.

You are as fake as they come...….. far more fake than any single poster on this forum.

Never have I come across a more deceitful, dishonest, vulgar Christian...….. on or even off this forum

You are a complete and utter disgrace to the religion itself, and if anyone on this forum endorses your language and actions "On behalf" of the Christian religion, then so are they.

Calling people Nazi's, Perverts, Sewer Rats and Paedophile's…… just to name a few...… simply because people do not follow your own beliefs about God...…..

What a complete fake, hollow and shallow individual you have become.

Draad

You remind me of those type of guys that constantly ask for forgiveness instead of permission...……...…. in other words, you post whatever you want to about a poster...... without knowing for sure at all, how accurate your information is, and no matter how much it could possibly be incorrect or insulting to that poster.(believe what you like, but this is untrue. I really try not to be offensive).....and only if he responds and tells you what a complete and utter dick you have been...… you say sorry and move on...…. and state that you will not to do it again...….. only to do it a few days later again..... and again...…...Too funny.

I say this because you have constantly done this...… so I'm curious...…. where or when does it stop?

You are one extremely slow learner if you have not yet learnt, that jumping in with shitty and fabricated information about any poster...….. gets you into shit most of the time...… because then you need to start re-evaluating how you make your daily decisions, because most normal sane people would have learnt that very basic life lesson by now, especially if they have been burnt as often as you have, for the exact same behavior.

I did say I will try and work a bit on my politeness...…..

The "Haastige Hond" should have slowed down many moons ago......because that "Haastige Hond" is seriously fucking with your perception, interpretation and comprehension skills. 

Best of luck

You may be right in what you are saying, but from my perspective, I thought I got along with most of the people on here, except for Rooi, Sharkbok and recently you...like I said, I will re-evaluate my behavior, but your initial reaction to me was a bit over the top IMO. I really did not expect the aggressive hostility...am still puzzled by it, but will work on it...I'm getting tired of arguing though. 

Draad

It's a online argument..... nothing more

I don't dislike you, I never have...… I do however disagree with the way you do and say certain things on this forum, and it will always be in my nature to bring that into the open and either discuss it with you or dispute it with you...…

Simple

Don't read anything more into it...… because it's not there

DA, the aggressive and insulting way you go about it gives me the impression that there is more to it...but it's cool. That is what I like about the internet. There are a lot that can be learned.

Draad, I have requested a few times already for you to not perceive or interpret things about me that you have absolutely no idea about, but yet you have continued to do so, and then you post some fabricated statements that you believe is me, because of my posts.....

However, if I disagree with your constant and regular misleading statements about me...…..., and I do so staunchly, whilst coming across as aggressive or insulting...…..well then I am really not too sure how many times I need to make that point directly to you, without at some point, getting aggressive or insulting.

DA, to argue the same issues is pointless, we have different points of view on a number of things. Can we leave it like that for the moment?...like I said I'll try being more careful in the future and articulate my opinions about some of the things you say a bit more carefully.  

Sheeesh Draad

Who is arguing the same issues here...…..

I was explaining the aggressive and insulting aspect of your own post, about me, back to you

Take a chill pill bro......seriously

No need for pills...I'm chilled.

Like your beers.....

Yes,I hate warm beer.

"Yes, I hate warm beer"

So we do have something in common......

Probably more than we would care to acknowledge...that goes for all of us on this and other sites.

Cheers, enjoy your next beer.

Cheers, you too