Non Footy Chat Thread II

[Poupou Escobar]

Yeah I saw that movie.

See also life under the Soviets and Maoists.

 

[Gronk]

See also life under the Soviets and Maoists.

I’ve seen that movie too !

 

[T.S Quint]

Val Holmes making his debut, came in 4th quarter at RB. So far, 2 yards, 14 yards, 11 yards.

Decent stats. Coming in in the 4th quarter of a preseason game means he wasn’t playing against any of the top line players (or even the second stringers), but for someone who’s never played the sport before it’s a good start.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I’ve seen that movie too !

View attachment 32097

It certainly seems your view of the world is heavily informed by Hollywood.

 

[hindy111]

Hollywood Gronk

 

[Gronk]

It certainly seems your view of the world is heavily informed by Hollywood.

Devils Playground was an Australian movie and an auto-biographical screenplay by Fred Schepisi. It was not Hollywood popcorn fantasy.

1984, well we both know that it was a dystopian study of Stalinist/Maoism communism which captured the independence of the soul, oppressive regimes and psychological manipulation. A 24/7 blitz on telescreens, microphones (were there computers in 1984 ? I can’t remember) does tap into Hindy’s brainwashing premise.

It was a cold day in April, and the clocks were striking 13.

 

[Gronk]

It snowed last night in the Canberra AFL

 

[Gary Gutful]

I'm sure it was the most exciting part of the game.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

It snowed last night in the Canberra AFL

Yes, it f**king snowed on me on my walk home from the pub.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Oh really ? Which statute protects the plaintiff, my learned friend ?

I posted above that all states and territories apart from NSW and South Australia offer legal protections to employees and independent contractors against discrimination on the grounds of religion.

Over to you.

Section 116:

"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

The constitution does not guarantee freedom of religion as a constitutional right, it deals only with the commonwealth ( so federal ) governments ability to write laws that prohibit or curtail the free exercise of religion.

How the High Court might interpret that in relation to Falau's case is hardly a given.

Correct, but...the free exercise of religion is the key, here. What, is there some assumption that anyone else - corporations, even states - can act in a way to supersede the Constitution?

If the Commonwealth cannot write those laws, then neither can states, and corporations can most definitely not write those "laws" in their contracts.

I mean, states have retained pre-Federation powers, true, and that could cover the grey area of religion...but in this case RA is not a state-based entity and has nothing to do with states. What, Folau could be guilty in NSW but not in Qld, based on state laws? Guilty in Tasmania but not in South Australia? What, based on individual state laws?

Even if that were true (which it isn't, and cannot be)...have any of these states passed laws prohibiting Folau's religion (which, theoretically, they can on a state-by-state basis)? No, they haven't. And imagine if one tried - it would be the death of them at the next election, and probably several elections after that. None will ever do it, so the point becomes moot.

Whether one's opinion is pro-Folau, anti-Folay, pro-RA, anti-RA...whatever...it doesn't change the legal landscape. This cannot be a state-by-state case, and no state has passed the laws that would be relevant to Folau's religion, and none ever will. Ever.

With that in mind, the Constitution reigns supreme, and, whether we like it or not, the Constitution will fall on Folau's side, in this case.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Fun fact: he is entitled to post his hate speech as a normal citizen (there are limits). Personally I don’t think that his Jesus would have done the same and indeed would have told Izzy to pull his head in.

The root of the case is that whilst you are getting paid squillions by your employer, what you do and say in the public domain has a bearing on your employers brand. Same with Todd Carney’s bubbler incident, same with Kevin Spacey and House of Cards etc etc.

No, it's not.

The root cause of this case is whether a corporation's brand supersedes the rights of an individual.

I guess, when it suits their agenda, leftoids are all for sucking off corporations...

 

[Gronk]

Section 116:

"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."



Correct, but...the free exercise of religion is the key, here. What, is there some assumption that anyone else - corporations, even states - can act in a way to supersede the Constitution?

If the Commonwealth cannot write those laws, then neither can states, and corporations can most definitely not write those "laws" in their contracts.

I mean, states have retained pre-Federation powers, true, and that could cover the grey area of religion...but in this case RA is not a state-based entity and has nothing to do with states. What, Folau could be guilty in NSW but not in Qld, based on state laws? Guilty in Tasmania but not in South Australia? What, based on individual state laws?

Even if that were true (which it isn't, and cannot be)...have any of these states passed laws prohibiting Folau's religion (which, theoretically, they can on a state-by-state basis)? No, they haven't. And imagine if one tried - it would be the death of them at the next election, and probably several elections after that. None will ever do it, so the point becomes moot.

Whether one's opinion is pro-Folau, anti-Folay, pro-RA, anti-RA...whatever...it doesn't change the legal landscape. This cannot be a state-by-state case, and no state has passed the laws that would be relevant to Folau's religion, and none ever will. Ever.

With that in mind, the Constitution reigns supreme, and, whether we like it or not, the Constitution will fall on Folau's side, in this case.

Wrong on 116.

Section 116 of the Constitution precludes the federal parliament from making laws that prohibit the free exercise of any religion, but does not stop the states from making such laws. The Fair Work Act prohibits discrimination based on religious beliefs or activity in employment contexts as do laws in all states except NSW and South Australia.

This is an employment contract dispute. Did he breach code of conduct / brand damage due to polarising social media posts with wide reach.

 

[Gronk]

No, it's not.

The root cause of this case is whether a corporation's brand supersedes the rights of an individual.

I guess, when it suits their agenda, leftoids are all for sucking off corporations...

So this is a fight between the left and right now ?

Where are the free speech activists rallying around his brother who was sacked from a Catholic school because of his pentecostal beliefs?

 

[Bazal]

Yes, it f**king snowed on me on my walk home from the pub.

I didn't even go to the pub.

My house was the pub. With my ducted gas heating and no need to go outside in the sleet.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Wrong on 116.

Section 116 of the Constitution precludes the federal parliament from making laws that prohibit the free exercise of any religion, but does not stop the states from making such laws. The Fair Work Act prohibits discrimination based on religious beliefs or activity in employment contexts as do laws in all states except NSW and South Australia.

This is an employment contract dispute. Did he breach code of conduct / brand damage due to polarising social media posts with wide reach.

It depends how lawful that contract was. Would it have been okay to contract an employee below minimum wage if he agreed to it?

 

[strider]

... The Fair Work Act prohibits discrimination based on religious beliefs or activity in employment contexts ...

Are you saying that his contract was in breach of the fair work act?

 

[Gronk]

It depends how lawful that contract was. Would it have been okay to contract an employee below minimum wage if he agreed to it?

Nah the ARU enterprise bargaining agreement is not the focus. The unconscionability (fairness, onesided, unjust) of the contract won’t hold any water.

 

[Gronk]

Are you saying that his contract was in breach of the fair work act?

The termination might have been if it is held that he was dismissed because of his religion. This is the crux of the case. ARU says that the code of conduct says don’t be damaging our brand via social media. He says that he was sacked bc of his religion.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The termination might have been if it is held that he was dismissed because of his religion. This is the crux of the case. ARU says that the code of conduct says don’t be damaging our brand via social media. He says that he was sacked bc of his religion.

Their brand is obviously at odds with religious expression by their employees. The question is which takes priority.

 

[Gronk]

Their brand is obviously at odds with religious expression by their employees. The question is which takes priority.

So if you were CEO of Pou Entertainment Pty Ltd and you paid one of your staff circa $1.5m per year to do a job. You hired him because he's the best in his field. Because he is the best in his field he has a high profile and in particular on social media. Problem is he posts stuff that is against the values of the organization and indeed internal research is telling you that his actions on social media is damaging your brand. Major sponsors are squirming in their seats and calling you wanting to know if you can tell him to put a lid on it.

What do you do ? Nothing because you you respect his right to express his religious or whatever rights ? What a nice guy !