Is it right that Israel Folau should get the sack for his 'Hell awaits gay people' comments?

[sooda]

The Australian rugby player is to be sacked after a social media post in which he also said "drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters" should "repent" because "only Jesus saves".

In a statement, Rugby Australia said the post "does not represent the values of the sport and is disrespectful to members of the rugby community", adding that its integrity unit had been "engaged on the matter".

Israel Folau has made similar posts before and managed to escape punishment.

More on this story here: Israel Folau: Rugby bosses meet with player and position is 'unchanged'.

What do you think about his sacking?

I think his sacking is a swell idea.

 

[dybmh]

I vote: "yes"; he should be sacked.

Rugby Australia is adopting a political position as part of its mission / vision. That mission / vision is inclusion.

The same thing could and should happen if someone who is working on a political campaign chooses to publicly promote beliefs and ideas which are counter to the campaign.

If it goes against the mission / vision, and the person has been warned, then termination is fair.

I think that the example that @Rival presents is a good one, but it is not equivalent unless the mission / vision of the company she is speaking about is anti-gay.

If being anti-gay is part of the mission / vision of the company; and its employees are promoting pro-gay issues; then I do not think that Rival's company would be criticized for terminating those specific pro-gay activists.

 

[Brickjectivity]

And they took responsibility by taking disciplinary action.

So fire everyone who doesn't agree with them on all political points. That's a great idea. Starve the *******.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I vote: "yes"; he should be sacked.

Rugby Australia is adopting a political position as part of its mission / vision. That mission / vision is inclusion.

The same thing could and should happen if someone who is working on a political campaign chooses to publicly promote beliefs and ideas which are counter to the campaign.

If it goes against the mission / vision, and the person has been warned, then termination is fair.

I think that the example that @Rival presents is a good one, but it is not equivalent unless the mission / vision of the company she is speaking about is anti-gay.

If being anti-gay is part of the mission / vision of the company; and its employees are promoting pro-gay issues; then I do not think that Rival's company would be criticized for terminating those specific pro-gay activists.

No way no way. Business is business. Personal life is personal life. Its none of their business what I do in my personal life.

 

[Father Heathen]

So fire everyone who doesn't agree with them on all political points. That's a great idea. Starve the *******.

So if you ran a business and one of your employees were making antisemitic statements while representing your company, you wouldn't fire him?

 

[Audie]

Next you can get fired for reading Tom Sawyer.
It has the N word.

 

[Revoltingest]

No way no way. Business is business. Personal life is personal life. Its none of their business what I do in my personal life.

Firing someone whose personal behavior harms my business is good practice.
But sometimes it could be required by law, lest I be prosecuted.
If I had a real estate agent in my employ who made such comments which
became public, even not associated with my business, it could cause my
company a fair housing violation, & a licensing violation.

 

[Father Heathen]

Next you can get fired for reading Tom Sawyer.
It has the N word.

Hardly comparable, but okay.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The Australian rugby player is to be sacked after a social media post in which he also said "drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters" should "repent" because "only Jesus saves".

In a statement, Rugby Australia said the post "does not represent the values of the sport and is disrespectful to members of the rugby community", adding that its integrity unit had been "engaged on the matter".

Israel Folau has made similar posts before and managed to escape punishment.

More on this story here: Israel Folau: Rugby bosses meet with player and position is 'unchanged'.

What do you think about his sacking?

I don't think he should have been fired, because what he was saying had nothing to do with rugby.

I wouldn't mind seeing him ridiculed and shamed to dust however. That's the only thing that's going to get people with their mind set against groups like this thinking. Hit their ego and keep punching until they're crying like a baby.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Firing someone whose personal behavior harms my business is good practice.
But sometimes it could be required by law, lest I be prosecuted.
If I had a real estate agent in my employ who made such comments which
became public, even not associated with my business, it could cause my
company a fair housing violation, & a licensing violation.

His job depends upon skillful manipulation of stuffed skins, and he doesn't represent the league. They'd like to claim he does, so that they can fire him. They just don't like him and are looking for a reason. I worked for a tech support company (for a few weeks) that wanted me to cheat customers, so I quit. That was me doing things to people, and it didn't matter that I was representing some low down no good cheaters. It was my responsibility and my reputation as an individual that counted.

So if you ran a business and one of your employees were making antisemitic statements while representing your company, you wouldn't fire him?

This is a rugby player -- one person. He can't represent all the other players unless he is making official statements. I have never managed a business, but I once worked for a foreman who hated all Jews and told me so. I did not quit. He didn't represent me. He was a different person.

If I ran a business, and one of my employees was making antisemitic statements while representing my company I would be a pretty stupid employer. Saying that every employee represents the company and therefore must espouse my personal beliefs is enslavement talk.

 

[dybmh]

No way no way. Business is business. Personal life is personal life. Its none of their business what I do in my personal life.

May I present an extreme example that I hope will make my case and get your feedback?

Let's go with the example of a political campaign to elect @Revoltingest for President.

In this example, you are a spokesperson for the campaign, and your job is to appear in the commercials promoting the Most Honorable Revoltingest.

Then, in the evenings, you are on the street handing out fliers and posting on social media anti-Revoltingest propaganda?

Is Rev required to maintain you as an employee in your current position even though your actions are opposed to the mission of the campaign which is to get Revoltingest elected?

 

[dybmh]

No way no way. Business is business. Personal life is personal life. Its none of their business what I do in my personal life.

Yes... I agree... in your personal life. Posting on social media is not personal... it's public.

Same thing with your antisemitic boss... that wasn't public, right?

 

[Brickjectivity]

May I present an extreme example that I hope will make my case and get your feedback?

Let's go with the example of a political campaign to elect @Revoltingest for President.

In this example, you are a spokesperson for the campaign, and your job is to appear in the commercials promoting the Most Honorable Revoltingest.

Then, in the evenings, you are on the street handing out fliers and posting on social media anti-Revoltingest propaganda?

Is Rev required to maintain you as an employee in your current position even though your actions are opposed to the mission of the campaign which is to get Revoltingest elected?

There are 2 extremes not just one. One extreme is that employers today can't easily try out new hires, and they are mired in lawsuits by bad hires. I get that, and I grasp that anybody can sue anybody for anything. The other extreme is that: employers (not my friend Rev but in general) often make extreme claims on our privacy. Not every dam thing is their business even if it might somehow affect their business.

Every employee does things that hurt the employer's business. If we sleep 10% too little we hurt the employer's business. Coffee addictions hurt their business. Being overweight hurts their business. Take a personal day -- hurts their business. Don't like Trump? It hurts their business. Don't have a girlfriend? It hurts their business. Everything we do has some little implication for their business, so they want us to take drug tests, carry spy devices on our bodies. They want our credit histories, our facebook passwords and just about everything. Its an argument for ownership. Its a creeping encroachment on personal space, and its not Ok.

Every employee does not represent the business at all times. When I am not being paid I'm definitely not representing a company. If I'm on salary and I leave the premises I don't represent the company, and I don't owe the company anything.

Now Rev brings up a point that sometimes employees really do represent a company. Fine, they sometimes do; but its farcical to say every employee represents the company especially to claim that we do so "At all times." Its unfair and taking ownership of something that doesn't belong to the company. You can't just tell every employee "You represent us now at all times." That's like saying "We own you."

 

[Revoltingest]

His job depends upon skillful manipulation of stuffed skins, and he doesn't represent the league.

Professional athletes have a sports task to do.
But toward what end?
Making money for the owners.
Public image is part of that for these athletes whose real job is to entertain the public.
And most of that public is repelled by his comments.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it's his opinion and he's allowed it.

Just as his team is allowed not to avail themselves of Folau's services.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now Rev brings up a point that sometimes employees really do represent a company. Fine, they sometimes do; but its farcical to say every employee represents the company especially to claim that we do so "At all times." Its unfair and taking ownership of something that doesn't belong to the company. You can't just tell every employee "You represent us now at all times." That's like saying "We own you."

If someone's religious or political commentary doesn't affect my business, then it's not a factor.
But if it causes me legal or financial difficulty, they get an opportunity to correct the situation...
....or the boot.

Consider another scenario....
If a team owner created an offensive public image, one which by association adversely
affected a player's personal or professional life, then that player should be able to resign.

 

[Rival]

Just as his team is allowed not to avail themselves of Folau's services.

It's why though. I find that sacking someone for having a controversial opinion is petty. It's nothing to do with your company. Can he play rugby? Yes. Can he play well? Yes. OK then, that's all his job is. If he started carrying out attacks on gay people, or raping people or whatever, then sure, sack him. But he just has an opinion.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Professional athletes have a sports task to do.
But toward what end?
Making money for the owners.
Public image is part of that for these athletes whose real job is to entertain the public.
And most of that public is repelled by his comments.

His detractors are out for blood, and his faithful league is happy to sacrifice him to appease the masses and make a profit from the scandal. His public image has been spoiled by an act of God, and they wish to profit from it.

 

[Revoltingest]

His detractors are out for blood, and his faithful league is happy to sacrifice him to appease the masses and make a profit from the scandal. His public image has been spoiled by an act of God, and they wish to profit from it.

It was no random act of God.
The player made the post.
Business is about profit.
Someone who harms it should be canned.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If someone's religious or political commentary doesn't affect my business, then it's not a factor.
But if it causes me legal or financial difficulty, they get an opportunity to correct the situation...
....or the boot.

In many situations, however, it comes down to humoring the people who can't see past these things, even though the subject at hand may have no bearing on a person's professional life. So you fire them, and cave to popular public opinion, which gives you a different sort of PR problem from another (albeit minority) angle. For example, people like me may boycott your business from that point on, knowing that your constitution is pretty weak.

Believe me, I get that if something is causing you legal or financial difficulty, then there needs to be some kind of "fix" to go after. But I am sure there are cases where it is just the employer caving to special snowflakes. Oh, how proud they must be.