Christians funding an appeal of a christian dismissed. Is it ethical or outrageously immoral

[KCfromNC]

The courts are likely to review these matters and it will effect everyone including christian institutions that, do date, have enjoyed a level of prejudice that other employers have not been granted. The irony is that now a level playing field for all employers may be established. If thats in favour of being able to say what you want, and be whoever you are... then Folau will regain his employment - and christian schools will NOT be able to refuse to employ a gay person or discipline the atheist science teacher who debunks creationism.

I can't wait to see satanist altar boys. Anything else would be religious persecution, at least if the defense of Folau is consistently applied. I'm sure it won't, because reasons, but like you imply, this will lead to open season for everything to be justified as religious discrimination. After all, it isn't like people can't just make up anything they want and call it a religious belief.

 

[Kaon]

This is a follow-up to the thread Titled - Is it Ethical to be fired for your Christian Beliefs.
Is it Ethical to be fired for stating Christian beliefs

This is about the case of Israel Folau. He was, until fired, Represented Australia in the national rugby union. He is a highly talented player and a fundamentalist Christian.

Israel Folau was fired for stating that those who had sex outside of marriage, who drank, who were gay, were of another religion (idolators)...the list goes on....they were all so evil that they will burn in hell forever.

He stated this from his social media platform which clearly identifies him as a Rugby Australia representative. He was warned, re-warned, re-re-warned...then finally fired.
The details of this are on another thread: Is it Ethical to be fired for stating Christian beliefs

This is a follow-up. Israel Folau has posted a 'GoFundMe' to cover his legal costs to sue Rugby Australia. His post states he is in the 'fight of his life'. He's asking for people to give him Three Million.

Now Israel is a millionaire +++++ through the lucrative contracts afforded him over the years. His request for funds sit alongside those asking for 10K because they have a Neuroblastoma. Another has leukaemia and asks for 7K.

How have Christians responded? - while those alongside Israel's requests have drastic needs, they receive nothing while Christians poured over $700 thousand to him

The question I have - does this behaviour to fund a multi-millionaire with millions more for his breach of contract court case, seem ethical when no such funds would be given to those who truly need it.

Finally - 'GoFundMe' has stepped in - closed his account and sent money back to the donors.

Where does all this sit with christians. It appears that many are:
A) Ok that he broke contract
B) would use a gofundme platform to fund his appeal.

relevant backstory is attached via some links.

Israel Folau's GoFundMe donations pass half a million dollars despite condemnation

Fierce reaction to GoFundMe’s move
deleted/11240354

'We're committed to fight for equality': GoFundMe axes Israel Folau's campaign

If, like it was explained on the last thread, he broke a contractual term (which is sounds like he may have), then that is on him. The Most High God wasn't joking when He said [eventually] we wn't be able to buy or sell (make a living) for our beliefs - and that time is coming, and has come in some places.

But, this particular event sounded like he forgot about his terms and conditions related to creeds and representing the brand, and/or he was trying to push a boundary with his influence. That is fine if you are ready for the consequences.

I don't agree with the actions, but it is ethical to fire someone for their religious views when interferes with the model and projection of the image of a company/brand.

 

[creslaw]

It is very sad - illegal actually - that Rugby Australia violated their own Code of Conduct by discriminating against & excluding a man who believes homosexuality is a sin and quoted the biggest selling book in the world, but who has always treated everyone equally, fairly and with dignity, and has never engaged in any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination.

Code of Conduct: "Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.
​

It is hate speech that labels disagreement as hate speech.

 

[Freodin]

It is very sad - illegal actually - that Rugby Australia violated their own Code of Conduct by discriminating against & excluding a man who believes homosexuality is a sin and quoted the biggest selling book in the world, but who has always treated everyone equally, fairly and with dignity, and has never engaged in any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination.

Code of Conduct: "Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.
​

It is hate speech that labels disagreement as hate speech.

See? This is what I was talking about in my last post.

It is this mindset that sees absolutely no problem with stating that someone else deserves eternal torment, and in the same time calling it "treating people with dignity".

You, Sir, deserve to be fed to the lions!

(And don't you dare report this as an infraction of CF rules. I called you 'Sir'. I treated you with respect and dignity. It's not my fault that you deserve to be fed to the lions.)

 

[Allandavid]

To be accurate - he targets those who are not christian but of another religion (idolators).

He targets those who are in a loving relationship but not traditionally married referring to them as fornicators.

He targets those who drink
Those are same sex attracted
Those who are atheist
those who have lied.

He states they are so evil that they will burn in hell forever.

What a disgusting message to be telling young people playing the game - that their parents who are either unwed, or are atheist or Sikh, are so disgusting they will burn in a fire.

What is wrong with Christians that you feel so compelled to be so hateful.

I play rugby. My parents are buddhist. They are gentle and good people. You all seem to think they are evil. I cannot express my disgust for Folau, and those Christians supporting him, strongly enough.

He was idolised and had so much opportunity to sell compassion and love but he has chosen instead to vilify and hate.

I wonder how many of you would be crying foul if a moslem teacher in a christian school started spraying ant-christian sentiment. I bet many of you would change your tune.

Well said Zoe...

 

[Allandavid]

It is very sad - illegal actually - that Rugby Australia violated their own Code of Conduct by discriminating against & excluding a man who believes homosexuality is a sin and quoted the biggest selling book in the world, but who has always treated everyone equally, fairly and with dignity, and has never engaged in any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination.

Code of Conduct: "Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.
​

It is hate speech that labels disagreement as hate speech.

What nonsense...!

Your rights, be they religious rights, political rights, civil rights.....end at my nose! If the exercising of your rights causes harm to me or discriminates in some way, then your rights are to be curbed in that instance.

No fundamentalist Moslem will be free to ‘kill all infidels’ as an expression of his religious rights. No Mormon (in my country at least) will be free to marry multiple wives, no Jehovah’s Witness will be permitted to be an agent in their child’s death by withholding vital medical care...

Waving your ‘religious rights’ banner does not give you a free pass to behave without consequence. Folau knew the agreement he had struck when he pulled on a rugby jersey. It’s time for him to honour that agreement...

 

[RDKirk]

It’s about Everyone’s right to express their beliefs outside of work without the fear of losing their job.

Why is that suddenly a right? It's never, ever been a "right" before.

Fifty years ago, a hundred years ago, a waiter in a restaurant could not have publicly uttered socially outrageous comments and expected to keep his job. That's never been any kind of right before.

 

[Belk]

The Australian Christian Lobby has stated that Israel Folau's case is only one of more than 60 they have dealt with. Depriving people of their livelihood because of their religious beliefs I would call persecution.
Folau's money is often mentioned but the vast majority of the many who have contributed to his defence know about his income, so why did we contribute? I'll let you think on that for a while

He was not deprived because of his beliefs. He was fired because he broke the code of conduct repeatedly. Does his employer not have the right of association? Are they not allowed to publicly distance themselves from someone who espouses views they disagree with?

 

[Kate30]

Why is that suddenly a right? It's never, ever been a "right" before.

Fifty years ago, a hundred years ago, a waiter in a restaurant could not have publicly uttered socially outrageous comments and expected to keep his job. That's never been any kind of right before.

Why is suddenly right. Than you continue to say it was never a right before. As far I know it has always been at least in the society I grew up in, people have always done so. And people generally express their veiws in a million and one ways. We may not like what they sometimes say. But so what. Doesn’t give me the right to dismiss people from their jobs. Simply because the next time you have a differing opinion it could be you or me. Farewell to freedom of thought and to all the great writers who have ever penned a word as well. That is how totalitarian, communism and oligarchs generally work. And now it seems you are demanding that we also give up our individual freedom of thought to what your place work demands as well. Within the bounds of common sense yes . But not at the expense freedom of speech and what you believe. I’m not sure what you mean about the waiter.

 

[RDKirk]

Why is suddenly right. Than you continue to say it was never a right before. As far I know it has always been at least in the society I grew up in, people have always done so. And people generally express their veiws in a million and one ways. We may not like what they sometimes say. But so what. Doesn’t give me the right to dismiss people from their jobs. Simply because the next time you have a differing opinion it could be you or me. Farewell to freedom of thought and to all the great writers who have ever penned a word as well. That is how totalitarian, communism and oligarchs generally work. And now it seems you are demanding that we also give up our individual freedom of thought to what your place work demands as well. Within the bounds of common sense yes . But not at the expense freedom of speech and what you believe. I’m not sure what you mean about the waiter.

People have been free to express their opinions and their employers have been free to fire them for it.

There has not been a right to hold a particular job.

No, sorry, your polemics about totalitarianism, communism, oligarchy, yada, yada, yada, are irrelevant. None of that government activity has anything to do with a private employer running his own business.

The employer also has right, and yes, he has the right to dismiss employees who present his company in ways opposed to his.

 

[Kate30]

Kirk with what your proposing for employees with their freedom of thought this can also be equally inflicted apon employers as well. That’s the point your missing. But than some piggies do think themselves as more equal than others I guess. : )

 

[Radagast]

People have been free to express their opinions and their employers have been free to fire them for it.

This is Australia we're talking about. It's illegal to fire people for discriminatory reasons. That includes on the basis of religion.

 

[Radagast]

After all, it isn't like people can't just make up anything they want and call it a religious belief.

To quote from the Australian Fair Work Commission:

Courts have had difficulties defining the term ‘religion’ due to the absence of a universally satisfying definition of the term. The following features were provided by the High Court as helpful but not determinative aids in deciding whether a particular collection of ideas and/or practices should objectively be characterised as ‘a religion’:

• the particular collection of ideas and/or practices involves belief in the supernatural, i.e. belief that reality extends beyond that which is capable of perception by the senses
• the ideas relate to man’s nature and place in the universe and relation to things supernatural
• the ideas are accepted by adherents as requiring or encouraging them to observe particular standards or codes of conduct or to participate in specific practices having supernatural significance
• however loosely knit and varying in beliefs and practices adherents may be, they constitute an identifiable group or identifiable groups, and
• the adherents themselves see the collection of ideas and/or practices as constituting a religion.

 

[Radagast]

He was not deprived because of his beliefs. He was fired because he broke the code of conduct repeatedly.

The code of conduct does not prohibit making religious statements in a private capacity.

 

[RDKirk]

This is Australia we're talking about. It's illegal to fire people for discriminatory reasons. That includes on the basis of religion.

Any reason to fire them would be "discriminatory" in some way. In the US there are only very specific types of discrimination that are illegal reasons for firing or hiring.

And if this case was illegal discrimination, then why isn't the Rubgy association in court?

 

[KCfromNC]

This is Australia we're talking about. It's illegal to fire people for discriminatory reasons. That includes on the basis of religion.

But in this case, no one was fired for being religious, so I'm not sure of the relevance.

 

[KCfromNC]

To quote from the Australian Fair Work Commission:

Courts have had difficulties defining the term ‘religion’ due to the absence of a universally satisfying definition of the term. The following features were provided by the High Court as helpful but not determinative aids in deciding whether a particular collection of ideas and/or practices should objectively be characterised as ‘a religion’:

• the particular collection of ideas and/or practices involves belief in the supernatural, i.e. belief that reality extends beyond that which is capable of perception by the senses
• the ideas relate to man’s nature and place in the universe and relation to things supernatural
• the ideas are accepted by adherents as requiring or encouraging them to observe particular standards or codes of conduct or to participate in specific practices having supernatural significance
• however loosely knit and varying in beliefs and practices adherents may be, they constitute an identifiable group or identifiable groups, and
• the adherents themselves see the collection of ideas and/or practices as constituting a religion.

Thanks, this seems to support my idea that Christian churches would be discriminating by not hiring Satanists to serve as clergy.

 

[Belk]

The code of conduct does not prohibit making religious statements in a private capacity.

Then I guess it is a good thing he was not fired for that.

 

[Radagast]

In the US there are only very specific types of discrimination that are illegal reasons for firing or hiring.

As is also the case in Australia.

And if this case was illegal discrimination, then why isn't the Rubgy association in court?

They are in court. Or at least they soon will be, as part of the standard sequence of events in an Australian unfair dismissal claim process.

 

[Radagast]

Then I guess it is a good thing he was not fired for that.

He was, actually. He was fired for making religious statements on his private social media accounts.