Is it Ethical to be fired for stating Christian beliefs

[Strathos]

I appreciate that we need to show Christs love. But do you think there is a place to call a sinner out. To tell them that there are consequences for sin.

Everyone is a sinner. Sometimes it's best to reflect on your own sins before those of others.

 

[stevevw]

I think like any good parent or friend even we sometimes have to confront people with the truth and the consequences of their actions. In fact I believe that telling people the truth about how their actions can lead to harm is truly showing love. To not do so is a disservice and a neglect of duty of care. Just as a doctor sometimes needs to tell his patient that their drinking or smoking is going to cause them harm and even death so to must be sometimes inform sinners that the wages of sin is death. It is written in the bible many times over. Otherwise we can love someone to death by naively hoping they will come good with our example of love when they may have need a bit of a shake up to wake up.

 

[stevevw]

Everyone is a sinner. Sometimes it's best to reflect on your own sins before those of others.

Yes that is true and is something Folau has said as well.

 

[Zoii]

Not really, the Christian school will be employing the person on the basis of belonging to their faith. So long as that is the case then the employee is meeting that criteria. If they convert to Islam then they no longer meet that criteria. Unlike secular organizations it is more vital for religious organizations to have everyone of the same faith to ensure a consistent approach and culture otherwise it will be undermined. It all depends on they religion and the organization. Some may be involved in a less religious activity where they can allow non religious people and I am sure that this is the case and they have allowed non religious people to express their views on social media. What I don't get is that we here of people bagging Christians all the time calling them all sorts of names and this seems to be all OK. Christians are use to this and they do not complain. Yet when it is the other way around it is like the biggest no no.

Then your admitting to the extreme use of religious prejudice by firing a person that has nothing to do with their job. A science teacher teaches science. As you point out, that won't stop the hypocracies of the church.

 

[KCfromNC]

It tells us that his employer dictates to Folau what is OK to express about his beliefs. If one bible verse is OK then all bible verses are OK. Folau has made plenty of posts that talk about sin and its consequences before and has alluded to those who sin if you look at his site. They cannot start dictating to Folau as that is not religious freedom but religious restriction.

As has been mentioned, no one is saying that he can't post those things.

 

[KCfromNC]

Not really, the Christian school will be employing the person on the basis of belonging to their faith. So long as that is the case then the employee is meeting that criteria. If they convert to Islam then they no longer meet that criteria. Unlike secular organizations it is more vital for religious organizations to have everyone of the same faith to ensure a consistent approach and culture otherwise it will be undermined.

Why do only religious employers get to create a workplace culture? I mean, just a few posts ago setting the tone for how employers interact was a huge violation of religious freedom, but now that religious employers are being discussed it is a requirement of employment to follow those guidelines.

A little consistency would be nice.

 

[KCfromNC]

But this still doesn't answer the question. You stated the bible verse is something of hatred. I am saying that many of Folau's christian friends believe in that verse and will express it or listen to it being expressed in their church meetings and bible studies.

And if many of his friends jumped off a bridge, would you?

In any case, the number of people believing the same things as Folau really is off topic. He wasn't let go for having a popular/unpopular opinion, he was let go for violating his employer's social media policy.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think like any good parent or friend even we sometimes have to confront people with the truth and the consequences of their actions.

That's exactly what Folau's employer did in this situation.

 

[Cash80]

And if many of his friends jumped off a bridge, would you?

In any case, the number of people believing the same things as Folau really is off topic. He wasn't let go for having a popular/unpopular opinion, he was let go for violating his employer's social media policy.

And because what he said on social media does not affect his ability to play rugby, the RA might readjust their social media policy. Unless, he wasn't the greatest among all players, that could be another story. I don't follow sports that much.

 

[stevevw]

Then your admitting to the extreme use of religious prejudice by firing a person that has nothing to do with their job. A science teacher teaches science. As you point out, that won't stop the hypocracies of the church.

No you have misunderstood what I said. We were just taking about how a religious organization may need to have their employees of the same faith. There is a good reason for that in that they may need to preserve a culture. I said they will advertise for a person of the same faith and that will be the criteria for that position. If that is all important and part of the job criteria and it is there for a very good reason how can the organization function with someone promoting conflicting beliefs. It would undermine the entire culture. The teacher turned Islam has then breached the original criteria they were employed. If a Liberal political party advertises for a public relations officer and they then turn Labour do you think they will want that person in that position. Do you think they have then failed to meet the job criteria.

That is the reason the exemption is given in the first place as religious organization may need to uphold their conscience on these matters. As I stated earlier if they employ a person as a science teacher without any prerequisite to them being of the same faith then they cannot sack them. But some schools may believe that all their teachers need to be of the same faith regardless of the subject for the sake of maintaining a consistent culture. Therefore they have every right to advertise for a science teacher of their same faith. They are not doing anything wrong as they have stated the criteria in the first place. If they have not stated the criteria and sack someone that is a different matter.

 

[stevevw]

Why do only religious employers get to create a workplace culture? I mean, just a few posts ago setting the tone for how employers interact was a huge violation of religious freedom, but now that religious employers are being discussed it is a requirement of employment to follow those guidelines.

A little consistency would be nice.

No most employers get to set their culture. It is just not complained about as much as people like to do with religion. Some employers may want outgoing young people for their sales staff and avoid employing older people. Some employers may want certain personalities that get along so they avoid certain people they assess as not being suitable. This is to create a certain culture they believe is best for their company or organization. Happens all the time, its just not scrutinized as much.

 

[stevevw]

And if many of his friends jumped off a bridge, would you?

In any case, the number of people believing the same things as Folau really is off topic. He wasn't let go for having a popular/unpopular opinion, he was let go for violating his employer's social media policy.

People keep saying that Folau had a social media clause in his contact but the fact is he did not and even the boss of RA admits this. RA did not negotiate this in the collective bargaining agreement with the Rugby Union Players Association. They cannot just put it in one players contract that would be discrimination. They could not put it in his current contract because that was already settled. In realizing this they even tried to offer him 2 million to for him to walk away from the game which is sort of an admission they got things wrong. Also the fact they did not educate the players including Folau in how to use social media nor seek advice on how to accommodate people of religious beliefs is another factor that goes against them.

Castle explained RA couldn't insert a specific social media clause in Folau's last contract as it wasn't part of the existing CBA between RA and (RUPA).
"We can't just insert clauses whenever we feel like it," she said. "Even if we had a (social media) clause who knows where this could have gone from a legal perspective?"
Rugby Australia CEO Admits To Issues Over Israel Folau Hearing

But the decision to re-sign Folau on a new $4.8 million deal over four years with no social media clause and training — on social media and discussion with religious experts — is expected to be scrutinized over.
Indeed, the failure to ensure laser tight steps were taken to prevent a second social media controversy led RA’s legal team to offer him “close to $2 million as a settlement offer to walk away” before May’s code of conduct hearing, The Daily Telegraph reports.

 

[stevevw]

As has been mentioned, no one is saying that he can't post those things.

I don't understand, that is why he was sacked for posting the bible verse. That sort of says they are restricting him from posting certain bible verses.

 

[keith99]

And because what he said on social media does not affect his ability to play rugby, the RA might readjust their social media policy. Unless, he wasn't the greatest among all players, that could be another story. I don't follow sports that much.

Actually it does. In all team sports having a harmonious relationship with your teammates is important. More so in Rugby than most. At times seeming to be able to read the minds of your teammates is what is needed to play well. That sort of rapport is well neigh impossible with a teammate who has consistently shown disrespect to most people unless you are also of the same sort.

Even more important is that he is a professional player. The organizational goal is to generate followers, people who fill the seats and/or watch on TV. That is his job and his comments have made him a major liability for the entire union.

 

[Cash80]

Actually it does. In all team sports having a harmonious relationship with your teammates is important. More so in Rugby than most. At times seeming to be able to read the minds of your teammates is what is needed to play well. That sort of rapport is well neigh impossible with a teammate who has consistently shown disrespect to most people unless you are also of the same sort.

Even more important is that he is a professional player. The organizational goal is to generate followers, people who fill the seats and/or watch on TV. That is his job and his comments have made him a major liability for the entire union.

But you see, all Folau's teammates were aware of his beliefs yet found him a very compatible person. Everybody who knows him personally also knows that he is a very loving person as well. Thus, the RA's justifications for sacking are more superficial, it has to do with their pr.

 

[RDKirk]

Sheesh, a lot of Christians are just like radical Feminists.

Or is it that radical Feminsts are just like.

Either way, neither group can see when they've gone off the rails of their own foundational beliefs.

 

[stevevw]

But you see, all Folau's teammates were aware of his beliefs yet found him a very compatible person. Everybody who knows him personally also knows that he is a very loving person as well. Thus, the RA's justifications for sacking are more superficial, it has to do with their pr.

 

[stevevw]

Sheesh, a lot of Christians are just like radical Feminists.

Or is it that radical Feminsts are just like.

Either way, neither group can see when they've gone off the rails of their own foundational beliefs.

How so, is not what he quoted from the bible and a fundamental part of belief. I think the problem is that people are now deciding which parts of the bible are OK or not. Just because someone may think that a particular verse should not be promoted does not mean others of the same belief think that it should. Therefore allowing them the right to quote the bible according to their religious belief is fair and legal. After all many people quote similar verses about sin and the need for repentance all the time and it seems OK. Just to be clear about what Folau quoted is legitimate and an accepted part of Christian belief here is an article putting what he said into context

Many people today put Hell in opposition to the love of God. But Jesus combines them. Here is an important truth: No one loves you more than Jesus Christ. And yet, no one spoke of or taught on Hell and Judgment more than Jesus Christ. There is from him, warning after warning, parable after parable, that speak and warn, even shout judgment and the reality of Hell.
http://blog.adw.org/2013/05/jesus-who-loves-you-warned-of-hell-a-catalogue-of-jesus-warning-texts/

So maybe in today's world of political correctness and soft Christianity what Folau is doing is actually being truly loving. After all if we really love someone and they are doing something that may hurt them isn't it best to let them know so they don't end up having something bad happen to them. Considering that this is not just a matter of physical life and death but the loss of a persons soul it is even more vital. Considering that the verse Folau posted was put into context by also adding that Jesus loves the sinner and can save them and that Folau has posted 100s of verses about Gods love I think he had every right to also post this verse. Yeah he could have been a bit more tactful but I don't think this is a matter of him losing his livelihood and destroying his career. Other players have done far worse and are still able to play.

 

[KCfromNC]

And because what he said on social media does not affect his ability to play rugby, the RA might readjust their social media policy.

Or they might not. That's their choice.

 

[KCfromNC]

No most employers get to set their culture.It is just not complained about as much as people like to do with religion.

Huh? That's the very basis of the problem in this case. It isn't anyone's religion, it is an employee saying things in public which are hostile to the culture the organization wished to create.