Non-Lions discussion 2022

[martinson]

That's correct.

His main problem is that for someone who achieved a CEO position at one of the majors he sounds like a dithering idiot.

Apparently on a personal level he's fine. Why you'd want him CEO of a footy club who knows .

Likewise his interview on SEN wasn't a trainwreck or anything close to it in explaining his overall world view or how he viewed LBGTI . It all sounded quite reasonable to me.

The question is what are his footy qualifications. To have to step aside for the reasons he did is just how nutty the world has become. But to have him head of a footy club, I can't see why you would.

 

[martinson]

Publicly confirmed he was told he couldn't be affiliated with a church if he wanted to keep working there. I think you'll find that that's still considered discrimination in every discrimination law ever.

Essendon has traditionally been dominated by methodist nut jobs .

What's become of them I wonder.

Now they stand for the opposite of those values but with no structure or substance to it. Just a lot of words about what they oppose ,not much of what values they have in the footy sense.

 

[brizrider]

Publicly confirmed he was told he couldn't be affiliated with a church if he wanted to keep working there. I think you'll find that that's still considered discrimination in every discrimination law ever.

No, that’s not the law

 

[spotthedog1]

Essendon has traditionally been dominated by methodist nut jobs .

What's become of them I wonder.

Now they stand for the opposite of those values but with no structure or substance to it. Just a lot of words about what they oppose ,not much of what values they have in the footy sense.

I thought they spoke of their values while openly and obviously contradicting them. "Inclusive, diverse and safe". Wasn't any of those for Thorburn.

 

[spotthedog1]

No, that’s not the law

Please feel free to provide references to support that. I don't believe you are correct.

 

[CarterS]

Imagine being a bomber supporter and you've gone away for the long weekend, did anything happen? Quiet weekend?

 

[Full Wingspan]

Please feel free to provide references to support that. I don't believe you are correct.

Onus is on you to show that it's unlawful given you're asserting it...

 

[martinson]

I thought they spoke of their values while openly and obviously contradicting them. "Inclusive, diverse and safe". Wasn't any of those for Thorburn.

He's clearly not discriminatory and he pointed that out quite clearly in explaining how he saw his role at Essendon. All to no avail.

Let's face it . If you're affiliated in any way with a religious body these days it's poison to your career as soon as that enters the public arena. All organisations blink first ,ask questions later.

They knew his background and whatever else about him when they appointed him. Personally he wouldn't be my choice but what an absolute pissweak effort on their part. To not even stick up for the guy you just appointed.

They're screwed.

 

[brizrider]

Please feel free to provide references to support that. I don't believe you are correct.

“Discrimination in employment on the basis of religion occurs when someone does not experience equality of opportunity in employment because of their religion. This may include being refused a job, being dismissed from employment, being denied training opportunities or being harassed at work.

Discrimination on the basis of religion alone is not unlawful under federal anti-discrimination law.”

Religion | Australian Human Rights Commission

Discrimination in employment on the basis of religion occurs when someone does not experience equality of opportunity in employment because of their religion. This may include being refused a job, being dismissed from employment, being denied training opportunities or being harassed at work.

humanrights.gov.au

 

[rye]

He's clearly not discriminatory and he pointed that out quite clearly in explaining how he saw his role at Essendon. All to no avail.

Let's face it . If you're affiliated in any way with a religious body these days it's poison to your career as soon as that enters the public arena. All organisations blink first ,ask questions later.

They knew his background and whatever else about him when they appointed him. Personally he wouldn't be my choice but what an absolute pissweak effort on their part. To not even stick up for the guy you just appointed.

They're screwed.

our previous prime minister was openly affiliated with an evangelical church.

if a politician can have a career as succesful to the point of reaching the highest office in the land with such an affiliation i think the vast majority of people in such a position will be fine

 

[martinson]

our previous prime minister was openly affiliated with an evangelical church.

if a politician can have a career as succesful to the point of reaching the highest office in the land with such an affiliation i think the vast majority of people in such a position will be fine

In corporate Aus now it's a complete no no to have open religious affiliations.

Just ask any high level recruiter.

Morrison was pilloried relentlessly for his religious affiliations and in the end copped his right whack.

No one bothered about it much until he got elected.

 

[Full Wingspan]

He's clearly not discriminatory and he pointed that out quite clearly in explaining how he saw his role at Essendon. All to no avail.

Let's face it . If you're affiliated in any way with a religious body these days it's poison to your career as soon as that enters the public arena. All organisations blink first ,ask questions later.

They knew his background and whatever else about him when they appointed him. Personally he wouldn't be my choice but what an absolute pissweak effort on their part. To not even stick up for the guy you just appointed.

They're screwed.

Not necessarily, we just had a PM strongly involved with Hillsong which was founded by a rock spider and more recently run by his son who has been charged with concealing his father's crimes (not to mention their various questionable practices and rituals).

While I appreciate Thorburn may not share the views of the church he leads, he is effectively endorsing those views and supports the pastor's right to express them.

Clearly there is incompatibility between Essendon's core values and that of City on a Hill. If he refuses to step aside from his role as leader of the church, then he finds himself not reflecting the interests of the members who are more representative of the community at large.

More simply, a significant part of the community not only rejects some of the views held by the church, but believes they should be condemned given the impact they have on some of society's most vulnerable. To respect one's individual right to hold views that oppress others is falling short for many.

 

[Full Wingspan]

Also, in my experience, Hillsong has a strong following amongst politicians and executives in corporate Australia. It's like a weird congregation of the elite.

 

[Sausages]

More evidence that we need a Bill of Rights

 

[spotthedog1]

“Discrimination in employment on the basis of religion occurs when someone does not experience equality of opportunity in employment because of their religion. This may include being refused a job, being dismissed from employment, being denied training opportunities or being harassed at work.

Discrimination on the basis of religion alone is not unlawful under federal anti-discrimination law.”

Religion | Australian Human Rights Commission

Discrimination in employment on the basis of religion occurs when someone does not experience equality of opportunity in employment because of their religion. This may include being refused a job, being dismissed from employment, being denied training opportunities or being harassed at work.

humanrights.gov.au

Yeah, I think that supports my point. He didt get the same opportunities, and he was dismissed because if religious belief.

FAIR WORK ACT 2009 - SECT 386​

Meaning of dismissed
(1) A person has been dismissed if:

(b) the person has resigned from his or her employment, but was forced to do so because of conduct, or a course of conduct, engaged in by his or her employer.

 

[martinson]

Also, in my experience, Hillsong has a strong following amongst politicians and executives in corporate Australia. It's like a weird congregation of the elite.

That's completely wrong.

Who are they ?

 

[brizrider]

Yeah, I think that supports my point. He didt get the same opportunities, and he was dismissed because if religious belief.

FAIR WORK ACT 2009 - SECT 386​

Meaning of dismissed
(1) A person has been dismissed if:

(b) the person has resigned from his or her employment, but was forced to do so because of conduct, or a course of conduct, engaged in by his or her employer.

Call a lawyer

 

[Hollow Knight]

He wasn’t dismissed for his personal religious beliefs. He was dismissed for being in a position of leadership in an organisation that promotes beliefs and values that are incongruent with the beliefs and values of the Essendon Football Club

The organisation with the controversial views happens to be a religious organisation, but that isn’t what anti-discrimination law (or the constitution) would define as religious discrimination.

I.e. he wasn’t let go for his personal beliefs, he was let go for (by holding a leadership role in the City on a Hill church) implicitly endorsing values incompatible with those of Essendon.

His statement today sounded like he was laying the groundwork to plead religious discrimination, but I don’t like his chances.

 

[BuntonRules]

Quite surprised they didn't appoint Hird again.
Would've been perfect.

Give it time.

 

[Full Wingspan]

That's completely wrong.

Who are they ?

I won't go into details, however I went to a leadership forum in Canberra when I was at university and it became quite apparent the whole thing was run by Hillsong.

Plenty of Liberal and Labor politicians were heavily involved with the church.

I was personally involved in a breakout group run by a band who have since become very successful and another who's father was a high ranking QANTAS executive.

Lovely people, however it became obvious quite quickly that the forum was facilitated by some very powerful/connected people most of which were aligned with Hillsong.

 

[spotthedog1]

Not necessarily, we just had a PM strongly involved with Hillsong which was founded by a rock spider and more recently run by his son who has been charged with concealing his father's crimes (not to mention their various questionable practices and rituals).

While I appreciate Thorburn may not share the views of the church he leads, he is effectively endorsing those views and supports the pastor's right to express them.

Clearly there is incompatibility between Essendon's core values and that of City on a Hill. If he refuses to step aside from his role as leader of the church, then he finds himself not reflecting the interests of the members who are more representative of the community at large.

More simply, a significant part of the community not only rejects some of the views held by the church, but believes they should be condemned given the impact they have on some of society's most vulnerable. To respect one's individual right to hold views that oppress others is falling short for many.

Essendon's actions aren't in line with Essendon's core values.

What part of a community rejects a view is irrelevant to a person's right to hold them. It's imperative that everyone is entitled to their beliefs and freedoms.

"An individual's right to hold views that oppress others". You have not justified this even slightly. No one is arguing that the church should have the right to oppress others.

You need to separate a person's privately held beliefs, which they apply to themselves (good), compared to when a person imposes their beliefs on others and make them live by their beliefs (bad).

We all need to respect and be tolerant of people who disagree with us.

 

[BuntonRules]

The more pertinent issue with Thorburn's appointment as CEO is whether it was at arm's length given his involvement in the "external review".

Second to that would be his fitness for the role given the fallout from the banking Royal Commission which questioned his character and ethics.

Then we arrive at his involvement at the church and its compatibility with Essendon's core values...

This is comically bad. I don't even think we reached these heights with Angus at the helm.

Right man foe Essendon, then.

 

[BangyBangy]

I won't go into details, however I went to a leadership forum in Canberra when I was at university and it became quite apparent the whole thing was run by Hillsong.

Plenty of Liberal and Labor politicians were heavily involved with the church.

I was personally involved in a breakout group run by a band who have since become very successful and another who's father was a high ranking QANTAS executive.

Lovely people, however it became obvious quite quickly that the forum was facilitated by some very powerful/connected people most of which were aligned with Hillsong.

I've often wondered why the church still seems to have so much sway in politics in this country given the swings towards atheism in the census'. Give it another hundred or so years I guess.

 

[Full Wingspan]

I know all the controversy with this saga surrounds his affliation with the church but I think it's more damning that he was appointed whilst undertaking a review of the club and for his abysmal ethical record during his time as NAB CEO.

 

[spotthedog1]

He wasn’t dismissed for his personal religious beliefs. He was dismissed for being in a position of leadership in an organisation that promotes beliefs and values that are incongruent with the beliefs and values of the Essendon Football Club

The organisation with the controversial views happens to be a religious organisation, but that isn’t what anti-discrimination law (or the constitution) would define as religious discrimination.

I.e. he wasn’t let go for his personal beliefs, he was let go for (by holding a leadership role in the City on a Hill church) implicitly endorsing values incompatible with those of Essendon.

His statement today sounded like he was laying the groundwork to plead religious discrimination, but I don’t like his chances.

That's a long-winded way of saying that he was dismissed due to affiliation with a religious organisation.

"Implicitly endorsing values incompatible with those of Essendon". You are literally arguing guilt by association.