It was not my original intention to donate to this. After all, I generally believe that an employment contract can be terminated at will by either party, if the agreed terms are followed. However, upon reflection several things have made me change my mind and donate – and why I think you should too, as it is the principle at stake far more than the actual factual scenario here:
- Israel Folau’s contract was terminated using the clause that he essentially brought his employer into disrepute because he posted a bible verse (Corinthians 6: 9-10) (prefixed with the word “warning”) on social media. It sets an extraordinary legal precedent that quoting the Bible is something that can be used to trigger the provisions in a contract that it brings the employer into disrepute as RA is claiming here.
- As a firm believer in contract law I have no other choice other than to agree that RAs actions are unconscionable and they have clearly breached their contractual obligations. I can not accept that quoting the Bible is grounds for breaking the contract in that it brings the game into disrepute etc. I note that RA did not follow the stipulations in the contract as to his payout were they to break it. This is an important point: they should be allowed to terminate the contract if they so wish but if they wanted to do so they should have paid out as per the agreed terms and not tried to claim he breached it by posting a bible verse.
- Israel’s wealth is irrespective to the question of right and wrong here. Whilst he could probably afford a defence, it is immoral to expect someone to sell their house and other assets just to afford the chance to take in their multi billion dollar former employer in court hence donating is a moral option.
- The anti-Christian bigotry I have seen on social media over the last 48 hours in particular has been sickening and I think it is our moral responsibility to fight bigotry no matter the situation (which is why I have previously donated to legal defenses of people of other religions).
- No matter what you think of the specifics here, there is a wider precedent at play regarding the principle of being able to use someone’s religious opinions as grounds to break contract. If this is allowed to stand, the wider implications are horrific and this is why I strongly feel it just be fought.
- I would also note that RA, whilst technically private, for all intents and purposes is essentially a government agency (given their subsidies and the regulatory regime they follow) and as such should be held to an even higher standard regarding such things than a private company or organisation.