Currency Lad: They All Look The Same

Remainder bin titan, Peter FitzSimons, is cock-a-hoop:

Where is the outrage over fate of the other Folau?

Where are you now my religious friends, my champions of free speech?

Calling all cars. I say, calling all cars! You know who you are. You were apoplectic with rage at the very idea that Israel Folau could be sacked by Rugby Australia for twice putting up homophobic gibberish, the second time after specifically committing contractually not to do so. His individual “religious freedom”, you shrieked, outweighed everything else, and his individual “freedom of speech” was so sacrosanct there could be no question of sacking him, even if it did piss off just about the entire rugby community, sponsors et al, not to mention generating weeks of devastating publicity for the game.

But we really need to hear from you now that Israel Folau’s cousin, Josiah Folau, has, as reported by the Herald, been let go from his casual teaching job at the prestigious Catholic school St Gregory’s College, Campbelltown, only a short time after describing the Catholic Church as “the synagogue of Satan”…

How can that be? I thought it was his individual right to put out any religious gibberish he wants? I thought any attempt to let someone go just for expressing their religious views would be a gross infringement on his individual rights to freedom of speech?

And yes, the concept of freedom of speech is rooted in the right of the individual, not the collective. So of course if you want to be consistent and everyfink, Josiah’s right to say and write whatever he damn well pleases … trumps the rights of his employer to sack an employee …

Happy to oblige, Pete. St Gregory’s College was exercising its religious freedom by dismissing Josiah Folau. The ARU is not a religious organisation and has no comparable right to dismiss Israel Folau. Put another way: the college is a Catholic school and Josiah hates Catholicism. Rugby union is a football code; Israel Folau loves that football code.

And thank you, Pete. You signal that you now absolutely support the right of Catholic schools to dismiss any employee who publicly undermines or denounces Catholic doctrine. So you won’t complain if opinionated gay teachers are sacked, for example.

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

89 Responses to Currency Lad: They All Look The Same

  1. stackja

    Fitz doesn’t support all ‘freedom’ only some he ‘approves’.

  2. There has been some mixed reporting about this as at the very beginning I read that his departure was not so much a ‘sacking’, but a mutually agreed departure where both sides acknowledged that it would no longer be appropriate for him to remain at the school.

    Naturally the media will make this out entirely as a sacking due to his comments (which under the circumstances would be quite justified), ignoring any actual discussions that may have occurred. But where can you find information on exactly what ensued?

  3. bespoke

    Israel Folau’s comment’s had nothing to do with Rugby, Peter (both of you)

  4. Beachcomber

    Fitzsimmons is so stupid and up-himself with self-righteousness that he doesn’t realize that he is actually helping Israel Folau.

  5. Beachcomber

    Ánd quoting the Bible is not ‘homophobic gibberish’. It is entirely reasonable and it’s what a lot of people believe.

  6. Ánd quoting the Bible is not ‘homophobic gibberish’. It is entirely reasonable and it’s what a lot of people believe.

    Is there any religious text that states anything different to what Israel Folau quoted? Is there any religion that would tolerate calling their place of worship a ‘synagogue of Satan’.

  7. Leigh Lowe

    A truly analogous situation would be if Israel Folau had said :-

    “Rugby is bat-shit boring and I can’t understand why people pay good money to watch it. Cheika couldn’t coach a pig to roll in shit, and David Pocock plays like a Marcia Brady.”

    He could be fired for that, and truth would be no defence.

  8. Tom

    Excellent post, CL.

    Never forget: the only thing that drives leftards like Bandana Boy is the neverending quest for political power and the means to impose it on the morally inferior masses.

    Nein-Fairfax is one of the last holdouts of the news media’s knowall smartarsery before the Fairfax titles, having alienated their readership base and destroyed their long-term commercial survivability, finally disappear up their own arses when Peter Costello and the Nein board decide to cut their losses in the next 2-3 years.

    FitzSimons is a major reason Fairfax is commercially worthless. Its only function in the Nein stable is to supply cheap attempted gotchas against corporate targets among Nein’s advertisers as it did last week against Crown on 60 Minutes.

    Having a rabid ideological activist subsidiary makes sense only in Wokeland, which is going broke. Ask Gillette.

  9. Anon Mahnà

    Is there any religion that would tolerate calling their place of worship a ‘synagogue of Satan’.

    Well, the Church of Satan probably wouldn’t be too upset.

  10. notafan

    Is this the Peter Fitzsimons who was suffering from Israel Folau syndrome or somesuch nonsense and wanted everyone to shutup,?

    He’s never stopped.

    And why on earth would someone who thinks the Catholic Church is the synagogue of Satan want to teach in a Catholic school?

    You are absolutely correct though CL.

    But let’s not elevate liking rugby to the same level as a sincerely held religious belief though.

  11. notafan

    They might find the word synagogue offensive.

  12. Rafe Champion

    On the report in the press the other Folau was seriously badmouthing the faith of the Catholic school where was employed. A bit like Izzy, while still in the team, posting that rubgy union is a trashy football code and everyone should watch league or AFL. That could violate a legitimate occupational requirement.

    Part of the code of religious freedom that we want is the right of religions organizations to not employ people who actively oppose the faith.

  13. Leigh Lowe

    A bit like Izzy, while still in the team, posting that rubgy union is a trashy football code and everyone should watch league or AFL. That could violate a legitimate occupational requirement.

    As per my post above, Rafe.
    However, the Fitzsimians of this world think that Israel Folau has committed such a breach because the core business of RA is running every SJW agenda going.

  14. Leigh Lowe

    Furthermore, administering the sport is sometimes nuisance value getting in the way of the greater cause.

  15. max

    WTF is an idiot like Josiah Folau employed at a Catholic school in the first place ? You mean to say this is the first time he has come out with this nonsense ? I don’t know why the Church persists with its excuse for a Catholic school operation. It should downsize severely.

  16. Roger

    Pirate Pete represents the new Puritanism:

    The fear that someone, somewhere might be exercising their freedoms.

    Rather, we all need to be straightened into his notion of what is right.

  17. Lee

    And thank you, Pete. You signal that you now absolutely support the right of Catholic schools to dismiss any employee who publicly undermines or denounces Catholic doctrine. So you won’t complain if opinionated gay teachers are sacked, for example.

    Pig’s behind he won’t!
    If Fitzsimons can’t tell the circumstantial difference between the two cases, then he should discontinue writing the rubbish he does.
    FitzSimons (he called a black man a “gorilla”) is a hypocrite on steroids.

  18. Lee

    How can that be? I thought it was his individual right to put out any religious gibberish he wants?
    Can anyone cite one instance of Pirate Pete badmouthing Islam or Muslims?

  19. Chris M

    Well put CL. Almost no parallel here at all except for the surname.

    And why on earth would someone who thinks the Catholic Church is the synagogue of Satan want to teach in a Catholic school?

    Exactly. He should never have accepted a job there on conscientious grounds.

  20. Tony Tea

    Pirate is more cock than cock-a-hoop.

  21. Leo G

    You were apoplectic with rage at the very idea that Israel Folau could be sacked by Rugby Australia for twice putting up homophobic gibberish, the second time after specifically committing contractually not to do so.

    Folau signed off on a contract with a “specific homophobic gibberish restraint” clause?
    How specific?

  22. Graham

    Peter F does not strike me as a very reflective lefty.

    I don’t know if it would come as a surprise to him to learn that the Fair Work Act specifically allows for this sort of situation.

    In an earlier post on another thread I pointed out that section 772(1)(f) of the Fair Work Act 2009 generally made unlawful termination of an employee for a reason which included “religion”.

    This general prohibition is subject to a number of ‘carve outs’. One exception is as follows:
    However, subsection (1) does not prevent a matter referred to in paragraph (1)(f) from being a reason for terminating a person’s employment if:
    (a) the reason is based on the inherent requirements of the particular position concerned; or
    (b) if the person is a member of the staff of an institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed—the employment is terminated:
    (i) in good faith; and
    (ii) to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.

    If the Folau relative had been employed by a Catholic institution and was terminated as an employee because he badmouthed the institution as satanic or the like then it seems to me that this is exactly the sort of situation where a termination would be justifiable. The legislation provides for this.

    I can’t see why Peter F sees hypocrisy. But then again I generally can’t follow his line of reasoning in his columns and tweets.

  23. Fair shake of the Sauce bottle

    What a non story. Sounds to me like Rugby Australia have their trolls going through Israel’s garbage and associated networks to get the goods on him. Nothing like tarnishing Izzy’s character any way possible. There’s a lot at stake here for some folks. Stay tuned for the next episode.

  24. Dr Fred Lenin

    The Folau story is now as long as Dostoevskys “War and Peace “ , still it has kept a lot of people busy and while the left are rubbishing Folau they are leaving other people alone ,Wankers !

  25. The difference between Israel Folau’s and Josiah Folau’s statements is that one had expressed genuine Christian belief while the other expressed a foul, non-Christian (or even religious), rant towards his employer. How would any other religious school take to having one of its employees bad mouth the very beliefs that the employer holds dear? But of course Josiah Folau has now become the poster boy of the Left.

  26. Some History

    Pete, Pirate to the Starz – the $8,000 Man, moralizing again. He introduced his “gotcha” column on twitter with:
    Column’s up. Fire at will. See if I care. Where is the outrage over fate of the other Folau?
    https://twitter.com/Peter_Fitz/status/1157238704999665665?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

    Other commenters have well noted that the circumstances of which Pirate Pete speaks are very different. But this critical difference is all too much for the Pirate. He’s way out of his depth, sinking in the sea of his plonkerism.

    https://imgur.com/rPUq8Ng

  27. Some History

    The Pirate apparently does this fairly regularly in public these days – bus stops, restaurants, street corners, etc:

    https://imgur.com/fWHGPYy

  28. Des Deskperson

    What I love about Fitz is his literary senility.

    ‘Calling all cars. I say, calling all cars!’

    Who in contemporary Australia still uses this sort of stuff in oral or written expression?

    Is he trying to convince us he’s a wise old geezer or is it the sort of obsolete argot that he might have picked up in private school or as a rugger bugger and has never grown out of?

    Whatever, it makes him look like an out of touch dill.

  29. Peter FitzSimian is a rare breed who should be cryogenically frozen (I’m willing to meet him halfway and wait until he is dead) and studied by “scientists” to further mankind’s knowledge in such things as…
    * What happens when a low IQ, low morals individual is educamated in a posh private school and regularly bug ger ised.
    * What happens when an already low IQ, low morals individual plays a sport where he is smashed in the head daily, and regularly bug ger ised.
    * What happens when a meat eating low IQ, low morals individual turns vegan at the behest of his Mrs, who regularly bug ger ises him.

    The knowledge gained would be invaluable.

    p.s. Yes yes, some of you think this rant is off colour and unnecessary, but a rant such as this has therapudic effects on the ranter exposed to FitzSimians rants.

  30. iamok

    Ah Pirate Pete the comma King:

    But we really need to hear from you now that Israel Folau’s cousin, Josiah Folau, has, as reported by the Herald, been let go from his casual teaching job at the prestigious Catholic school St Gregory’s College, Campbelltown, only a short time after describing the Catholic Church as “the synagogue of Satan”…

  31. Whatever, it makes him look like an out of touch dill.

    Look like?

  32. Lee

    You were apoplectic with rage at the very idea that Israel Folau could be sacked by Rugby Australia for twice putting up homophobic gibberish, the second time after specifically committing contractually not to do so.

    Folau signed off on a contract with a “specific homophobic gibberish restraint” clause?
    How specific?

    The Left never lets the facts get in the way of a good fantasy/conservative or right wing bashing.
    Folau was quite specific in not giving away all his social media rights in such a clause in his contract.
    Hence, RA may be in a lot of hot water.

  33. The BigBlueCat

    Peter FitzSimons has always worn his red bandana way too tight … maybe to help hide the circumcision scar …

    Any prognostication from Pirate Pete is bound to be the incoherent dribblings of a rage-filled bigot. His wife isn’t much better. Both have over-inflated egos (and bank balances to match). The BigBlueCat wonders if their income is linked to how many stupid statements they can make.

  34. Homo erectus

    Isn’t it wonderful how principles like fair work and common freedoms are parsed readily by tribal influences? Fitzthing is a dill. But he grabs the nuts of those who went all freedom child on Folau, who was simply fired for repetitive stupidity. As for the tykes, they can take care of themselves in my experience.

  35. Old School Conservative

    the Fitzsimians of this world

    Brilliant.

  36. Old School Conservative

    And why on earth would someone who thinks the Catholic Church is the synagogue of Satan want to teach in a Catholic school?

    I may be mistaken, but Josiah was a well credentialed graduate of St. Gregs and was welcomed in as a trainee teacher on that basis.
    When his newer beliefs became public, the separation was always bound to happen.

  37. Russell

    FitzSimons comically says in his poorly written article: “I said . . . ARE YOU WITH ME???”

    Well I was with him on a recent Q flight to London and it was an eye-opener. Did I say we were in the Business class cabin? So much for his rabbiting-on about saving the planet. I can tell you from this experience, this guy acts like an overgrown teenager – feet up on the bulkhead, stomping around the cabin while other people try to sleep. And BTW he removes his bandana in the air – maybe to appease his green conscience?

    But funniest thing was that British immigration made him remove his bandana for identification and he had to leave the hall without his branding … certainly not very godlike.

  38. notafan

    Osc, thanks for that.
    Doesn’t mean he was Catholic of course, always have a small number of other denominations at Catholic schools.

    I assume he also came out of Mormonism into AOG before they splintered into their own church.

    They didn’t come up with that anti Catholic rhetoric on their own.
    , That is for sure.

  39. Oh come on

    let go from his casual teaching job

    His “casual teaching job”? Oh, you mean he was on their books as a relief teacher? Ummm. Schools sign on and let go of relief teachers all the time. They don’t need to give a reason. Same with the teachers themselves – they can give a school the flick by simply not taking their calls.

    This is a complete nontroversy.

  40. JC

    OCO

    Aren’t there different classifications for non-permanent full-time work? Casual, part-time, part-time permanent… etc etc.

  41. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    And why on earth would someone who thinks the Catholic Church is the synagogue of Satan want to teach in a Catholic school?

    Because some poor sap has been indoctrinated at the billy bob school of theology, re Alexandr Hislop, Titus Oates etc’s bigoted, stupid, ahistorical fantasies and the utterly brain dead “Cathlicks aren’t Xtians” grade A bull plop.

    “Cathlick beliefs aren’t in the bible…they pray to Mary…”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail_Mary#Biblical_source

    If your idea can be reliably refuted on wikipedia, you’re probably a hick of some sort.

  42. Oh come on

    JC: at the nitty gritty level it would depend on the state, but yes there are permanent and fixed term teachers, and these positions can be part or full time. Teachers employed casually cannot, in a practical sense, perform any role other than relief work. Even if a casual teaching contract is signed by a teacher, there will be no obligation on the school to provide work and nor will there be an obligation on the teacher to accept work when it arises.

    So I smell a rat when I hear ‘a casual teacher has been let go’, as if that means anything. A school can ‘let a casual teacher go’ by simply not calling them anymore. Relief teachers come and go – commonly, they wouldn’t even realise they’ve been ‘let go’ by a school until after a month or two, when they realise they haven’t been called in by Such and Such College for a while. And the school wouldn’t go out of its way to tell them – why bother with the confrontation?

    In this case, I reckon what’s happened is that Folau has realised this school isn’t calling him in anymore, he’s got in touch with them to find out why, and they’ve told him. It is seriously not a big deal at all. He could easily get relief work at dozens and dozens of other schools, and he probably does.

  43. Tim Neilson

    Can anyone cite one instance of Pirate Pete badmouthing Islam or Muslims?

    To be fair I think he has said more or less that his views on Islam are the same as his views on Christianity.

    But his heart doesn’t really seem to be in “Islamophobia” the way it is in Christianity-bashing.

  44. Whalehunt Fun

    if opinionated gay teachers are sacked, for example

    Depends if the sack has holes in it to let in air. And will it be hessian or plastic. Plastic is sweaty nasty. Hessian breathes and allows perspiration to evaporate, so is much more comfortable.

  45. notafan

    Folou was a boarding master not an actual teacher?

  46. notafan

    Josias could only be around 20 if he finished high school in 2016, couldn’t possibly be a teaching graduate.
    His uncle’s church sounds like it preaches anti Catholic rantings and little else.

  47. notafan

    I know Frank.

    But their very existence depends on proving Catholism wrong.

  48. dover_beach

    Setting aside FitzSimon’s terrible argument, what really surprises is that he thinks this episode involving the other Folau is unique, as if there have not been other instances where religious institutions have properly exercised their religious freedom and ceased their association with an offending employee. He actually thought his argument was a zinger. Sad.

  49. Mother Lode

    To be fair I think he has said more or less that his views on Islam are the same as his views on Christianity.

    Bit of a cop out, really.

    The logic is presumably meant to be: Islam is equivalent to Christianity. Christianity is bad. Therefore Islam is bad.

    He says the first two, but avoids the last.

    But then, with Christianity he cites what he thinks to be damning examples such as a Rugby player exhorting others to change their ways so they can be with God. (Utterly harmless but at odds with the state sanctioned morality and a belief that some people don’t want in other people’s heads).

    On the other hand he does not reference the Jihadism, the honour killings, the right to lie, the enforced segregation and diminish meant of women, and of course the belief in exactly the stuff that Folau said about the sexually licentious, gays, drunkards etc – but turned up to eleventy and condemning to hell fire rather than imploring salvation.

    No, Pirate Pete is a ridiculous shallow man who likely thinks his atheism makes him profound and enjoys firing salvos at people he thinks he is better than. Not being a thinker, working in slogans and quips rather than formulating a coherent and consistent set of ideas, he was not ready for the fact his complaints also applied to Islam.

    They are scary, and they are a protected demographic.

    So, a cop out phrase with no substance.

    What a weasel.

  50. I_am_not_a_robot

    FitzSimons’ heavy-handed piss-take is pointing out the eagerness of some people to enthusiastically support freedom to express a sentiment that they agree with, while being indifferent to another circumstance where prima facie the same principle would apply.
    It’s a moot point because as I understand it Josiah Folau is not making an issue of his circumstance, he resigned.

  51. Mother Lode

    My post disappeared!

  52. Mother Lode

    Oh no it hasn’t.

    It is in moderation.

    Would it be too difficult to highlight the offending words and for people to be able to access their own comments while in moderation.

    At least we would be able to make our points in a timely fashion.

    After all, once offending words are identified after countless moderated posts, it is easy to say the same thing through periphrases, l33t, rhymes etc.

  53. notafan

    Prima facie thinks like a robot, the matters are clearly and obviously very different.

    Rugby is not a religious institution with a natural right to not employ those who
    emphatically disagree with their beliefs.

  54. Mother Lode

    Yes it has – kinda.

    It appears on my phone, but not my computer.

  55. I_am_not_a_robot

    Rugby is not a religious institution with a natural right to not employ those who emphatically disagree with their beliefs …

    Every employer has a ‘natural right’ to employ (or not) anyone they like.

  56. I_am_not_a_robot

    Don’t they?

  57. notafan

    You made the claim, dear.

  58. Rebel with cause

    A criticism of hypocrisy from Pete the Pirate. LOL.

  59. Frank

    Remainder bin titan

    It has a ring to it, sort of like Osama bin Laden, another one that wore hankies on his head.

  60. Iampeter

    Happy to oblige, Pete. St Gregory’s College was exercising its religious freedom by dismissing Josiah Folau. The ARU is not a religious organisation and has no comparable right to dismiss Israel Folau.

    Wow really?
    His point was that Folau supporters have glaring inconsistency in their position and you proudly conceded the point without realizing you’ve done so.
    You then went even further and explicitly stated that you think religious organizations have different rights to non-religious ones.
    But just like Rafe, you probably don’t think you’re a leftist supporter of identity politics…

  61. dover_beach

    Every employer has a ‘natural right’ to employ (or not) anyone they like.

    Let’s admit that premise. It is irrelevant so far as Israel Folau’s case is concerned as the dispute their is over unlawful termination of the contract. Nothing in the contract prevented Israel Folau from making religious statements on social media. On the other hand, I’m sure Josiah Folau’s contract did indeed include provisions about making statements against his employer, and about undermining the principles and purpose of the school, and so on.

    People who think that there is some sort of hypocrisy involved in our defense of the former and our indifference re the latter are simply confused about the operative principle in both cases which is the freedom of individuals and organizations to pursue their religious mission. The RA has no such mission and any provision that curtailed Israel Folau’s religious statements on social media would violate his right. In the second instance, since the principle is operative for the school and for Josiah Folau, the only solution to the impasse and the one used was a respectful severing of ties between the two.

  62. Iampeter

    Every employer has a ‘natural right’ to employ (or not) anyone they like.

    The clueless leftists that post here simply can’t get their heads around this.

    Part of the code of religious freedom that we want is the right of religions organizations to not employ people who actively oppose the faith.

    I’m pretty sure religious organizations already have this right, while the rest of us do not.
    This kind of special priveledge for some but not others is a violation of freedoms, including religious freedom.
    What you’re advocating is nothing more than identity politics just like any other of today’s leftists.
    You’re just totally unaware of it.

  63. stackja

    Petering out has a privilege confirmed by Sinc seemingly to post regardless of anything sensible.

  64. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3123716, posted on August 5, 2019 at 10:18 am

    Poor old Iamashiteater.
    Mr Miss-The-Point strikes again.

    Commenter after commenter notes that a rugby institution can sack people for rugby reasons just like a religious institution can sack people for religious reasons (though in this case it seems Josiah wasn’t sacked anyway).

    Yet Iamashiteater is simply too stupid to understand that fundamental point, and keeps on bloviating on the erroneous assumption that the rights of a religious organisation are somehow different in kind to the rights of any organisation to dismiss someone for reasons connected with the actual objectives and operations of that particular organisation.

    The extent to which an employer can or should be able to sack someone for reasons other that operational/objectives reasons is a different issue – and not one that is relevant even to Israel Folau’s action against RA since they freely signed him to a four year deal and then purported to sack him a few months later.

  65. I_am_not_a_robot

    People who think that there is some sort of hypocrisy involved in our defense of the former and our indifference re the latter are simply confused about the operative principle in both cases which is the freedom of individuals and organizations to pursue their religious mission …

    Who are the implied “we” in “our defense”?
    I think people like ‘notafan’ are confused, she doesn’t seem to understand the distinction between natural rights and legal rights.
    Legal rights are determined by legislation and interpreted by the courts and that is what is underway in Israel Folau’s case.

  66. FelixKruell

    St Gregory’s College was exercising its religious freedom by dismissing Josiah Folau.

    And what about Josiah Folau’s religious freedom?

  67. notafan

    I think I do

    I think Catholics should be included in those allowed to exercise their natural right to freedom of religion

    which is why religious institutions are exempted from certain legal requirements regarding employment contracts

    Josiah is free to follow his new religion, I don’t believe he was dismissed but if he was it was because he had breached an employment contract freely entered into.

  68. Winston

    ‘Leftists’

    He keeps using that word. I don’t think it means what he thinks it means.

  69. dover_beach

    And what about Josiah Folau’s religious freedom?

    He still has it. The difference between the two cases is that the same right is not in conflict in the first as it is in the second.

  70. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    He still has it.

    Just not his job. Much like the other Folau.

  71. dover_beach

    Just not his job. Much like the other Folau.

    I see you want to continue ignoring the different circumstances of each case.

  72. Iampeter
    #3123742, posted on August 5, 2019 at 10:54 am

    Every employer has a ‘natural right’ to employ (or not) anyone they like.

    The clueless leftists that post here simply can’t get their heads around this.

    Purposefully obtuse IAmFvckwit keeps building strawmen. This isn’t about the right to employ someone. Let me give you an example that even a 5 year old can understand.

    IF: “Hi I’m a rugger, please give me a job”
    RA: ” No mate, you’re not a good fit for our business model, now fvck off”

    See that IAmAFvcwit? That is OK by me and others. No obligation to hire anyone.
    Now let’s try it a different way to see if your obtuse moronic tiny brain can comprehend.

    IF: “Hi, I’m a rugger and I would like to play for RA.”
    RA: “Corr, yeah mate, you look a likely sort. Sure, here is a million bucks per year, come and play for us.”

    See the difference there IAmAFvckwit? See it? One is BEFORE an employment contract is entered into. In that instance, an employer has the right to just say “no, I haven’t got a job for you” and he doesn’t even have to explain why.
    However once a contract is entered into, then there are various laws that both sides have to abide by. The employer can’t just break that contract.
    For example (just to make it really simple for you) if that sheila who is the head of RA, wanted IF to give her oral, and IF refused, then BY LAW she can’t sack him for not giving her oral.

    Got it now? Now back to your crayons.

  73. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    I see you want to continue ignoring the different circumstances of each case.

    The circumstances that matter are the same – someone losing their job because they expressed their religious views against the wishes of their employer.

    The question is whether the type of employer (religious or not) makes a difference in this case. Even if it does (as you seem to suggest) it still means that the employee’s religious rights are being infringed upon.

  74. Iampeter

    Purposefully obtuse IAmFvckwit keeps building strawmen.

    He says as he proceeds to erect a strawman.

    This isn’t about the right to employ someone.

    Yes it is.
    But even if you’re a leftist who agrees with things like Fair Work Acts, you should still be disgusted by what Folau is trying to pull, not try to exploit the situation to advance your identity politics. That makes you a particularly slimy type of leftist.

    And of course the other thing we won’t be forgetting is the staggering ignorance of politics that this situation has exposed. Not just at the Cat from people like Rafe, yourself and many other posters, but from professionals, like Andrew Bolt.
    People who don’t know how individual rights, free speech, freedom of religion, and similar basic concepts work, have no business opining on politics.

  75. dover_beach

    The circumstances that matter are the same – someone losing their job because they expressed their religious views against the wishes of their employer.

    Not at all. Although, in both instances, each expressed a view in accord with their religion, in the second instance, the view expressed was also against their employer. Further, given the view he expressed, the employer is entirely within its rights to judge that he cannot properly fulfill his duties to the school as a consequence. None of this could be said of Israel Folau in the first instance.

    The question is whether the type of employer (religious or not) makes a difference in this case. Even if it does (as you seem to suggest) it still means that the employee’s religious rights are being infringed upon.

    Again, not at all. If I’m employed by a Steiner school and I’m making derogatory statements about the educational philosophy of Steiner schools, the school is within its rights to terminate my contract or casual employment.

  76. Iampeter
    #3124001, posted on August 5, 2019 at 3:50 pm

    This isn’t about the right to employ someone.

    Yes it is.

    Once again you are being obtuse.
    IF didn’t bring about a charge at the time of applying for a job. He had already got the job.
    Therefore…..this isn’t about the right of an employer NOT TO employ anyone for any reason he chooses.
    Employers have that right AFAIK
    This is about the right of an employer to fire anyone (fire get it? meaning an employment contract has already been entered into) for any reason whatsoever, which I personally prefer (having been an employer in one shape or another for most of my adult life).
    My preference isn’t the issue. This country HAS laws about so called unfair dismissals and that’s what the IF vs RA issue is all about i.e. AN EVENT THAT HAPPENED AFTER EMPLOYMENT.

    THEREFORE……….this isn’t about the right of an employer to hire or not, anyone he chooses.
    So take that “yes it is” and shove it up your arse.

  77. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    Not at all. Although, in both instances, each expressed a view in accord with their religion, in the second instance, the view expressed was also against their employer.

    Which is kinda covered by my statement that it’s ‘against the wishes of the employer’. Whether those wishes are driven by religion or sponsorship, is irrelevant to the question of whether Folau’s religious rights are being infringed upon.

    If I’m employed by a Steiner school and I’m making derogatory statements about the educational philosophy of Steiner schools, the school is within its rights to terminate my contract or casual employment.

    Quite true. But not really relevant. Your religious rights haven’t been infringed upon in those circumstances.

  78. a reader

    1amp doesn’t understand what leftist politics actually is.

  79. Iampeter

    This is about the right of an employer to fire anyone (fire get it?

    Obviously when I said this is about “the right to employ someone,” using your words, I was implying ALL aspects of employment. Hiring, firing, whatever.
    This is such an obvious point that it shouldn’t need clarification.
    Maybe don’t call other people obtuse until you’re not the most confused poster in a thread.

    1amp doesn’t understand what leftist politics actually is.

    I’m pretty sure you don’t understand it. Just like most posters at the cat, you are another clueless leftist, spending time on a right wing blog because you have no clue what’s going on.

  80. dover_beach

    Which is kinda covered by my statement that it’s ‘against the wishes of the employer’. Whether those wishes are driven by religion or sponsorship, is irrelevant to the question of whether Folau’s religious rights are being infringed upon.

    Again, not at all. Firstly, I just demonstrated different circumstances. Secondly, you’re just assuming that the different missions of the school and RA are irrelevant; they’re not. Thirdly, the mission of RA is not ‘sponsorship’ but developing and a winning national team and promoting rugby union. Sponsorship is just a means to those ends.

    Quite true. But not really relevant. Your religious rights haven’t been infringed upon in those circumstances.

    It is relevant to the extent that it shows that organisations, including religious organisations, are perfectly within their rights to exclude people at odds with their missions, even we they are exercising their rights.

  81. @Iampeter
    #3124592, posted on August 6, 2019 at 8:10 am

    I only tolerate an obtuse prick like you because you’re one of the few people who understands that there is no such thing as an atmospheric greenhouse effect. You’re worth preserving just for that.
    However you’re otherwise intolerable precisely because of things like the following…

    Obviously when I said this is about “the right to employ someone,” using your words, I was implying ALL aspects of employment. Hiring, firing, whatever.
    This is such an obvious point that it shouldn’t need clarification.
    Maybe don’t call other people obtuse until you’re not the most confused poster in a thread.

    Once you realise you are wrong, instead of saying “I didn’t clarify, here I’ll state my case more clearly” you toss the blame on me by saying (effectively) that I failed to read your implication. I failed to read your mind.
    I was clear. I made the distinction between the right to hire and the right to fire, yet you claim I’m the confused one.
    And that’s why I call you IAmAFvckwit. You are.

  82. Iampeter

    Once you realise you are wrong, instead of saying “I didn’t clarify, here I’ll state my case more clearly” you toss the blame on me by saying (effectively) that I failed to read your implication.

    I wasn’t wrong about anything, I just didn’t realize you would need something so obvious clarified. As usual.

    This is the point you were responding to:

    Every employer has a ‘natural right’ to employ (or not) anyone they like.

    The clueless leftists that post here simply can’t get their heads around this.

    Then you say:

    I was clear. I made the distinction between the right to hire and the right to fire, yet you claim I’m the confused one.

    What distinction? Why would you think there’s a distinction?

    This incoherence, political illiteracy, lack of any principles and dishonest attempt to play endless word games to continue arguing a point you’ve hopelessly lost and never even understood, is what makes Cat leftists so entertaining.

  83. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    Secondly, you’re just assuming that the different missions of the school and RA are irrelevant; they’re not.

    Then please explain why they are relevant to whether Folau’s religious rights are being infringed?

    It is relevant to the extent that it shows that organisations, including religious organisations, are perfectly within their rights to exclude people at odds with their missions, even we they are exercising their rights.

    You’re completely ignoring Folau’s rights. I’m not disputing the school’s rights here.

  84. a reader

    Are you seriously suggesting 1amp that Privilege, preferred pronouns, gendered language and the like are right-wing things? Like I said, you’re an idiot and don’t understand left or right wing politics. There’s being a contrarian and being an idiot. You’re in the latter category

  85. Iampeter

    Are you seriously suggesting 1amp that Privilege, preferred pronouns, gendered language and the like are right-wing things? Like I said, you’re an idiot and don’t understand left or right wing politics. There’s being a contrarian and being an idiot. You’re in the latter category

    No, nor is it possible to take such a suggestion from anything I’ve said, which is why you are a cat-level moron.
    What I’m saying is that supporting regulating trade, immigration, tech companies, marriage, pretty much every aspect of peoples lives by the state, are ALSO not “right-wing things.”
    Which means posters at the cat are also not right wing.

    As usual, I can’t believe this needed to be clarified.

  86. dover_beach

    Then please explain why they are relevant to whether Folau’s religious rights are being infringed?

    Because the school enjoys the same right in this instance and allowing Josiah Folau to remain in the employ of the school as he publicly denogrates its mission would grossly infringe the right of the school to pursue its mission.

    You’re completely ignoring Folau’s rights. I’m not disputing the school’s rights here.

    Not at all. I’m considering the right of the school and of Josiah Folau. And given that in the first case, the RA enjoys no right of similar standing as that of the school, I indicated that the solution is justifiedly different.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.