Discussion 2022 General AFL Discussion

[pebblesofsand]

Yeh so again he hasn’t come out and said he doesn’t agree with the comments has he? If I was involved with a club that had said something like what they had said in the past I would leave that club, at the very least I would have no issue very loudly proclaiming that I don’t agree with those views at all. The fact that he hasn’t shows us that he absolutely does agree that homosexuality is an eternal sin and abortion is similar to concentration camps.

It’s pretty simple, those views don’t align with Essendons views, therefore he’s not the right cultural fit.

As for the the Muslim man they didn’t so what’s the point of the discussion? If they do and they retain him in spite of him admitting to homophobic views then cross that bridge, kinda doubt it’s gonna happen.


His behaviour hasn’t aligned to the values the bombers have that’s a performance indicator.

Plenty of Catholics don’t oppose Homosexuality, the Anglican archbishop doesn’t as quoted in that earlier article

The Anglican archbishop of Melbourne, Dr Philip Freier, issued a statement in support of Thorburn and archdeacon Guy Mason, the clergy leader of the City on a Hill movement, who is also a senior leader in the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne.

“In 2016, I joined the archbishop of Canterbury and other international Anglican leaders in agreeing a statement that rejected homophobia and affirmed that ‘God’s love for every human being is the same, regardless of their sexuality, and that the church should never by its actions give any other impression’,” Freier said.

It’s pretty weird to me that in 2022 with a pride round and all sorts or laws and afl rules against homophobic language that anyone would bother trying to defend a guy who has very clearly and oublically embraced what amounts to hate speech is being defended.

He’s free to have those beliefs that doesn’t make him free of the consequences of them.

I think people are confusing the views and actions of the church with the views and actions of the individual and there lies the problem.

Your quote is as meaningless as equating the views of the Church on a Hill with how Thorburn MIGHT conduct himself in business.

The Catholic Church absolutely forbids gay marriage to be conducted in a Catholic Church (so by definition is discriminatory). The logical conclusion of your argument is that therefore all Catholics should no longer be able to work because of the overarching view of the church.

Essentially what you saying is that there is no space for "personal" interpretation and implementation of your faith and individuals will be judged on the rules of their "faith" rather than the actual behaviours and actions of the individual.

"The Catholic Church does not have the power to bless same-sex unions, the Vatican office responsible for doctrine has said.

It is "impossible" for God to "bless sin", the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) said on Monday.

But the CDF did note the "positive elements" in same-sex relationships.

In October, Pope Francis indicated in a documentary that he thought same-sex couples should be allowed to have "civil unions"."

Catholic Church 'cannot bless same-sex unions'

The Vatican says it cannot give blessings to 'sin', in a statement endorsed by the Pope.

www.bbc.com

 

[SaintsSeptember]

There is clearly conflict within religious organizations.

Living in Sin? How Gay Catholics Manage Their Conflicting Sexual and Religious Identities - PMC

Religious principles and values provide meaning and affect personal identity. They may also conflict with intimate needs and desires. This article examines how gay Catholics manage conflicting areas between their sexual and religious selves. Eight ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

​

If what Essendon did was OK, it could also be possible to refuse to employ a homosexual on the grounds that they they followed a homophobic religion.

 

[phantom13]

I think people are confusing the views and actions of the church with the views and actions of the individual and there lies the problem.

Your quote is as meaningless as equating the views of the Church on a Hill with how Thorburn MIGHT conduct himself in business.

The Catholic Church absolutely forbids gay marriage to be conducted in a Catholic Church (so by definition is discriminatory). The logical conclusion of your argument is that therefore all Catholics should no longer be able to work because of the overarching view of the church.

Essentially what you saying is that there is no space for "personal" interpretation and implementation of your faith and individuals will be judged on the rules of their "faith" rather than the actual behaviours and actions of the individual.

"The Catholic Church does not have the power to bless same-sex unions, the Vatican office responsible for doctrine has said.

It is "impossible" for God to "bless sin", the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) said on Monday.

But the CDF did note the "positive elements" in same-sex relationships.

In October, Pope Francis indicated in a documentary that he thought same-sex couples should be allowed to have "civil unions"."

Catholic Church 'cannot bless same-sex unions'

The Vatican says it cannot give blessings to 'sin', in a statement endorsed by the Pope.

www.bbc.com

That’s not at all what I’m saying actually.

I’m saying he’s been asked to resign because of his personal views on homosexuality, if he’s not clarified that the churches views differ from his then it’s a fair assumption that he agrees with them, if he does then he’s a homophobe (and an anti abortion advocate).

He’s absolutely entitled to those views as backwards and moronic as I might think they are but if they are juxtaposed to Essendons views then he can’t really work there can he?

You keep banging on about it being his religious right to think that way but it’s also Essendons right to not want a person with views that are completely opposed to theirs representing them.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

That’s not at all what I’m saying actually.

I’m saying he’s been asked to resign because of his personal views on homosexuality, if he’s not clarified that the churches views differ from his then it’s a fair assumption that he agrees with them, if he does then he’s a homophobe (and an anti abortion advocate).

He’s absolutely entitled to those views as backwards and moronic as I might think they are but if they are juxtaposed to Essendons views then he can’t really work there can he?

You keep banging on about it being his religious right to think that way but it’s also Essendons right to not want a person with views that are completely opposed to theirs representing them.

These are quotes from him.

“There’s a diversity of people. Different races, sexual orientations, faiths and cultures, that’s society. My role as a CEO is to ensure that the organisations that I lead, which I think my record stands for this, is inclusive and welcoming and caring and diverse.

“I think that makes us a more human organisation and makes us a higher performing organisation. My commitment - and it’s always been this, and I think my record stands - is that I will create that organisation and lead that organisation.

“Personally, I feel I have role modelled that. I haven’t been a perfect CEO, but I think my respect for people, my care, my love, my welcoming style, I welcome all those people, everybody is welcome. That’s really what I want people to look at, look at my actions, look at my words as a leader and the organisations I’ve created to enable safe, diverse, inclusive workplaces, that’s my record I want people to look at and have confidence in.

“I would say… I respect and care about you and you’re welcome in this organisation and I want to hear what you think to ensure you feel safe and can speak out.
--------------------

“Now I want to come to the church … I’ve never heard these things expressed since my time, I’ve been on the board for two years. But I also want to say in the church - like any diverse society - there are very different views on all these matters. I have different views on some matters, I’m not a pastor, my job in a governance role is to make sure it’s run well.

“I don’t always agree with what’s said, but in a way that’s not the point. If we want a diverse society, it also means there’s going to be people with different views, and I think as we go forward in Australia, it’s not whether those views exist because they do, the question for harmony is whether we can co-exist and hear each other and respect each other’s views.”

----------------------

Is that not stating that the Church has different views to his own? In fact that the Church is composed of different people with different views?

 

[phantom13]

These are quotes from him.

“There’s a diversity of people. Different races, sexual orientations, faiths and cultures, that’s society. My role as a CEO is to ensure that the organisations that I lead, which I think my record stands for this, is inclusive and welcoming and caring and diverse.

“I think that makes us a more human organisation and makes us a higher performing organisation. My commitment - and it’s always been this, and I think my record stands - is that I will create that organisation and lead that organisation.

“Personally, I feel I have role modelled that. I haven’t been a perfect CEO, but I think my respect for people, my care, my love, my welcoming style, I welcome all those people, everybody is welcome. That’s really what I want people to look at, look at my actions, look at my words as a leader and the organisations I’ve created to enable safe, diverse, inclusive workplaces, that’s my record I want people to look at and have confidence in.

“I would say… I respect and care about you and you’re welcome in this organisation and I want to hear what you think to ensure you feel safe and can speak out.
--------------------

“Now I want to come to the church … I’ve never heard these things expressed since my time, I’ve been on the board for two years. But I also want to say in the church - like any diverse society - there are very different views on all these matters. I have different views on some matters, I’m not a pastor, my job in a governance role is to make sure it’s run well.

“I don’t always agree with what’s said, but in a way that’s not the point. If we want a diverse society, it also means there’s going to be people with different views, and I think as we go forward in Australia, it’s not whether those views exist because they do, the question for harmony is whether we can co-exist and hear each other and respect each other’s views.”

----------------------

Is that not stating that the Church has different views to his own? In fact that the Church is composed of different people with different views?

No it’s not, where in that quote does he definitely say he does not agree that homosexuality is an eternal sin?

I think he’s very clever and has worded all these responses around the direct issue at hand, put it this way.

If some club you were a part of came out and said “gays are lesser humans” would you take 35 quotes to broadly mention your record of inclusivity and acceptance or would you just say “I don’t agree that gay people are lesser humans”.

It’s not hard to rebut the words from the sermon and he’s worked damn hard to ensure he absolutely does not do that.

 

[pebblesofsand]

That’s not at all what I’m saying actually.

I’m saying he’s been asked to resign because of his personal views on homosexuality, if he’s not clarified that the churches views differ from his then it’s a fair assumption that he agrees with them, if he does then he’s a homophobe (and an anti abortion advocate).

He’s absolutely entitled to those views as backwards and moronic as I might think they are but if they are juxtaposed to Essendons views then he can’t really work there can he?

You keep banging on about it being his religious right to think that way but it’s also Essendons right to not want a person with views that are completely opposed to theirs representing them.

"You keep banging on about it being his religious right to think that way but it’s also Essendons right to not want a person with views that are completely opposed to theirs representing them."

Its funny but your last line is actually the thing that worries me the most about this event but not the way you may think. I'm not coming at this from a right wing libertarian point of view, I'm more concerned about the master/slave elements of this matter.

As much as they would love to, employers do not own you 24 hours a day. They employ you to do a job, you do that job properly, you've held up your part of the deal.

You are entitled to a life outside of the job. If Thorburn in his role, decided that Essendon shouldn't accept a sponsor because of their ties to "gay rights" - well then that's a legitimate issue.

If he attends a church that holds discriminatory views outside of his job, I don't believe that's a legitimate issue for any employer.

 

[Highlander35]

It's a lot of words to not explicitly say "I don't agree with my churches stated views on homosexuality in society".

 

[phantom13]

"You keep banging on about it being his religious right to think that way but it’s also Essendons right to not want a person with views that are completely opposed to theirs representing them."

Its funny but your last line is actually the thing that worries me the most about this event but not the way you may think. I'm not coming at this from a right wing libertarian point of view, I'm more concerned about the master/slave elements of this matter.

As much as they would love to, employers do not own you 24 hours a day. They employ you to do a job, you do that job properly, you've held up your part of the deal.

You are entitled to a life outside of the job. If Thorburn in his role, decided that Essendon shouldn't accept a sponsor because of their ties to "gay rights" - well then that's a legitimate issue.

If he attends a church that holds discriminatory views outside of his job, I don't believe that's a legitimate issue for any employer.

If he was some low level admin person you might be right.

As the CEO he is a very public figure at the club and his personal views become public matter.

I wouldn’t want anyone who can’t explicitly say they don’t have any issue with homosexuals representing St.Kilda, I don’t blame Essendon for wanting the same thing.

 

[bergholt]

As for the the Muslim man they didn’t so what’s the point of the discussion? If they do and they retain him in spite of him admitting to homophobic views then cross that bridge, kinda doubt it’s gonna happen.

If they're doing ex-NAB CEOs then they could grab Ahmed Fahour. I'm told he's less a muppet than just an arseh*le. No idea if he's homophobic though.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

No it’s not, where in that quote does he definitely say he does not agree that homosexuality is an eternal sin?

I think he’s very clever and has worded all these responses around the direct issue at hand, put it this way.

If some club you were a part of came out and said “gays are lesser humans” would you take 35 quotes to broadly mention your record of inclusivity and acceptance or would you just say “I don’t agree that gay people are lesser humans”.

It’s not hard to rebut the words from the sermon and he’s worked damn hard to ensure he absolutely does not do that.

Are you saying , that in order to get a position in a company, you have to state your personal opinion on homosexuality?

 

[phantom13]

Are you saying , that in order to get a position in a company, you have to state your personal opinion on homosexuality?

No. Stop trying to make up arguments, it’s a pointless exercise.

We’re clogging up a thread and making it more SRP at this point, we pretty obviously don’t agree so may as well just leave it there.

 

[pebblesofsand]

No. Stop trying to make up arguments, it’s a pointless exercise.

We’re clogging up a thread and making it more SRP at this point, we pretty obviously don’t agree so may as well just leave it there.

Probably paywalled but this article from Tim Costello is worth read.

‘The words were wrong’: Dons saga pastor backtracks, Costello pushes for bill of rights

Andrew Thorburn’s messy departure from Essendon football club prompted a conservative church to apologise for likening abortion to concentration camps.

www.theage.com.au

“When Essendon says ‘we want to be the most diverse club in the AFL’, they really now have a problem,” Costello said, adding the decision meant it would be difficult for a Muslim or conservative Jew to get a position on the club’s board.

“This has ripple effects that we just need to pause and think about.”

 

[Ephemeral Hope]

AFLW player refuses to participate in pride round. Second year in a row

 

[Hubnester]

Probably paywalled but this article from Tim Costello is worth read.

‘The words were wrong’: Dons saga pastor backtracks, Costello pushes for bill of rights

Andrew Thorburn’s messy departure from Essendon football club prompted a conservative church to apologise for likening abortion to concentration camps.

www.theage.com.au

“When Essendon says ‘we want to be the most diverse club in the AFL’, they really now have a problem,” Costello said, adding the decision meant it would be difficult for a Muslim or conservative Jew to get a position on the club’s board.

“This has ripple effects that we just need to pause and think about.”

Am I missing something or are the journos?

They keep trying to make it about his faith, but isn't it entirely to do with his role?

He's not just a passive believer, he is the director at a church that actively pushes these backwards beliefs. If he were just a member of the church it probably would have never come up. But if you're there and in charge of spreading these beliefs and personally profiting from doing so, it's clearly a conflict and entirely at odds with also being the CEO of a club that would want to be seen as inclusive and progressive.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Am I missing something or are the journos?

They keep trying to make it about his faith, but isn't it entirely to do with his role?

He's not just a passive believer, he is the director at a church that actively pushes these backwards beliefs. If he were just a member of the church it probably would have never come up. But if you're there and in charge of spreading these beliefs and personally profiting from doing so, it's clearly a conflict and entirely at odds with also being the CEO of a club that would want to be seen as inclusive and progressive.

Yes it should be about his role and how he did it - but it was about his personal beliefs.

The weird thing is that Essendon happily employed him, even though his corporate and ethical behaviour which was roundly criticised by Justice Hayne in the Banking Royal commission, then effectively terminated him because his personal views were in contradiction with the clubs "corporate values'.

Says a lot about the "corporate values of Essendon!!

Then you read David Barhams statement about having to accept Thorburn's "resignation" primarily because of his specific religious beliefs were in "direct contradiction to the values of the club".

And what are the values of the club

"Essendon is committed to providing an inclusive, diverse and a safe Club, where everyone is welcome and respected.

We (Essendon) are deeply committed to our values and support wholeheartedly the work of the AFL in continuing to stamp out any discrimination based on race, sex, religion, gender, sexual identity or orientation, or physical or mental disability.

Not sure how forcing the resignation of someone based on their personal religious views (not how those views have impacted their performance) is helping stamp out religious discrimination.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Am I missing something or are the journos?

They keep trying to make it about his faith, but isn't it entirely to do with his role?

He's not just a passive believer, he is the director at a church that actively pushes these backwards beliefs. If he were just a member of the church it probably would have never come up. But if you're there and in charge of spreading these beliefs and personally profiting from doing so, it's clearly a conflict and entirely at odds with also being the CEO of a club that would want to be seen as inclusive and progressive.

He stated that he is not. They have a hierarchy of clergy that deals with that.
He's an administrator.

His history doesn't suggest that he will negatively influences the organisations he managed.

NAB Pride

NAB Pride is our Employee Resource Group to support and advocate for the LGBTI+ community. Learn about what we do and how we celebrate the LGBTI+ community.

www.nab.com.au

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The Anglican Church, of which his church is a branch, is one of the more progressive ones.

Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Meanwhile we don't know Thorburn's personal beliefs, though Phantom claims to.
It is also possible to employ deeply homophobic people who have no religious belief or affiliation.

Is Father Bob homophobic?

Father Bob says yes to marrying same sex couples

gay marriage Church Fr Bob

cathnews.com

 

[pebblesofsand]

Another one that is paywalled but iits worth a read so I've cut and pasted.

Thorburn case shows vulnerability of human rights protections at work

Employers tread a slippery slope when they cherry-pick the human rights they are willing to respect and those they are not.

www.theage.com.au

Thorburn case shows vulnerability of human rights protections at work​

Paul O'Halloran​

Employment Lawyer
October 6, 2022 — 11.47am


Andrew Thorburn, former chief executive officer of the Essendon Football Club, would appear to have been the subject of what I as an employment lawyer would call a “forced voluntary resignation”.

A hypothetical CEO in his position is usually given some options, all of them unfavourable and leading to the employment ending, but being able to retain a modicum of dignity by exercising some limited personal control by resigning. Usually the resignation spares the person from some fate much worse, such as summary dismissal or an internal investigation into alleged wrongdoing.

I do not know how Mr Thorburn came to resign 24 hours after his appointment as CEO of Essendon Football Club. Reports assert it was due to his involvement with a church organisation that allegedly in a sermon in 2013 denounced homosexuality and abortion. Mr Thorburn apparently may not even hold these views personally. What I do know is that the law in Victoria (and other states in this country) protects freedom of religion and other fundamental human rights.


Mr Thorburn has the right, protected by the laws enacted by the parliaments of Victoria and the Commonwealth, to be a member of whatever lawful religion he chooses. He has a right to hold the views of that religion. He has this right just as much as men and women have a right not to be sexually harassed at work, or women have a right to be pregnant and keep their job, or LGBTI people have a right not to be treated unfavourably at work due to their sexual preference, or someone with depression has a right not to be dismissed because of their disability.

People hold different views about different topics in the workplace. Acceptance of those views, provided that they are not unlawful or injurious to others, is what genuine inclusion and diversity means. Freedom of religion is protected by Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act 2010. The legal protection means that a person cannot be treated unfavourably because they hold, or do not hold, a lawful religious belief or view.

There are similar protections in the Fair Work Act, which covers most employees in Australia, preventing employers from taking “adverse action” against an employee, including because of their religion or political opinions.

While many people in Australia today may not consider themselves to be particularly religious, anti-discrimination laws do not prioritise one protected attribute over another. Freedom of religion is afforded the same protection alongside gender identity, disability, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental or carer status, pregnancy, race, sex, and other accepted attributes.

Pressuring an employee to resign due to their pregnancy or sexual preference, if proven, would be just as unlawful as pressuring an employee to resign due to their religious belief.

It seems that Andrew Thorburn’s appointment was not consistent with Essendon Football Club’s ultimate aspirations for its ideal CEO, although that is not what the club said when his appointment was announced.

Putting aside whether adequate pre-employment due diligence was conducted, and assuming Mr Thorburn felt he had no choice but to resign due to the predicament he found himself in, employers tread a slippery slope when they cherry-pick the human rights they are willing to respect and those they are not. When this occurs, the totality of our human rights protections at work become vulnerable to cancel culture.

In a different age, it might have been unthinkable for a woman to become the president of a football club. If members of a club demanded that a man be installed instead this would rightfully be considered discrimination on the basis of gender.

Likewise, I think most of us would be appalled if a gay AFL player were pressured to resign from a club due to his sexuality. Religious belief is no different. It is a protected attribute at law and deserves the same recognition until such time as it is no longer a protected attributed and is removed by parliament, should that ever occur.

You may not like Thorburn’s views, but his right to continue in employment isn’t dependent on whether you like what he or his church thinks. Cancelling him for the views some members of his religion might hold in defiance of legal protections the state offers him endangers the protections we all enjoy under that same law.

​

 

[Hubnester]

He stated that he is not. They have a hierarchy of clergy that deals with that.
He's an administrator.

His history doesn't suggest that he will negatively influences the organisations he managed.

NAB Pride

NAB Pride is our Employee Resource Group to support and advocate for the LGBTI+ community. Learn about what we do and how we celebrate the LGBTI+ community.

www.nab.com.au

I didn't mean he gets up on his soapbox and preaches to the masses directly, more that as a director he is responsible for the direction of the business and so would be the driving force to grow that business and reach its goals. That's what I felt was the conflict, personally profiting from this while also doing a gig at at organisation which supposedly has totally opposite values. Feels like a cigarette company selling nicotine patches or a gambling company profiting from a gambling addict helpline, for a crude example.

Really the only winning move would have been not to be silly enough to give him the job in the first place.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Our head of state is Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

C of E must welcome gay people or face questions in parliament, says MP

Labour’s Ben Bradshaw says church is ‘actively pursuing a campaign of discrimination’ against lesbian and gay people

www.theguardian.com

C of E must welcome gay people or face questions in parliament, says MP​

Labour’s Ben Bradshaw says church is ‘actively pursuing a campaign of discrimination’ against lesbian and gay people

 

[flyingmagic]

I didn't mean he gets up on his soapbox and preaches to the masses directly, more that as a director he is responsible for the direction of the business and so would be the driving force to grow that business and reach its goals. That's what I felt was the conflict, personally profiting from this while also doing a gig at at organisation which supposedly has totally opposite values. Feels like a cigarette company selling nicotine patches or a gambling company profiting from a gambling addict helpline, for a crude example.

Really the only winning move would have been not to be silly enough to give him the job in the first place.

Might have misunderstood but thought it should be clarified but his position at the Church is not paid.

It's voluntary and very similar to being on the board of St Kilda. You might have meant "personally profiting" in relation to his position at Essendon but just thought I should clarify.

 

[phantom13]

The Anglican Church, of which his church is a branch, is one of the more progressive ones.

Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Meanwhile we don't know Thorburn's personal beliefs, though Phantom claims to.
It is also possible to employ deeply homophobic people who have no religious belief or affiliation.

Is Father Bob homophobic?

Father Bob says yes to marrying same sex couples

gay marriage Church Fr Bob

cathnews.com

At least hve the balls to tag me mate.

I’ve said it’s fair to assume if he’s not going to refute the claims of the church then he believes it.

Stop making shit up.

 

[Highlander35]

Calling it Anglican rather than NeoCalvinist is a very fun minimisation.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Calling it Anglican rather than NeoCalvinist is a very fun minimisation.

Wouldn't know, I just read what people say.

Governance - City on a Hill

Governance Governance at City on a Hill City on a Hill is committed to planting and leading healthy churches. Our governance structures play an important role in in providing the appropriate accountability, wisdom and support to our leaders, as we pursue our mission together. As one movement of...

cityonahill.com.au

Currently five of our churches are Anglican and are licensed as Authorised Anglican Congregations (AACs)
in the Melbourne Diocese (Melbourne, Melbourne West, Melbourne East, Geelong, Surf Coast). These
churches operate under the Parish Governance Act as one church through a combined cooperative
agreement, with shared leadership and governance. Under this arrangement, the Senior Pastor is licensed
as the Priest-in-charge, and ministry staff across the churches licensed by the Archbishop as either assistant
clergy or authorised lay ministers

 

[Sun Ra]

Essendon appoints Brian Houston as interim CEO while it reviews hiring process — The Shovel

"He told us he was 'between jobs' at the moment"

www.theshovel.com.au