News Andrew Thorburn is retaining legal counsel for wrongful termination by the Essendon Football Club. NOW WITH BIG BANGS

[Chief]

Posts arguing about the validity of transgender people and abortion and all that stuff are being moved. Stick to the topic please.

Thread bans will start tonight for people who cannot stay on topic.

Essendon Football Club CEO Announcement.

Further news:

• New Bombers boss responds to backlash after appointment that ‘spits in the face of every queer Essendon member’
• New Essendon CEO, Andrew Thorburn, involved in church expressing homophobic, anti-abortion views
• Victorian Premier Andrews slams absolutely appalling views of new Essendon CEO'S church
• New Dons CEO to lead 'inclusive' club despite divisive church links

• Thorburn resigns... Essendon Club Statement
• AFR article - paywalled

 

[zeggie]

It’s somewhat amusing how this alleged cancelled person still has a chairman job, and has been given plenty of opportunities to put out statements via various MSM outlets.

I don’t think conservatives know what cancelled actually means.

Big Steven Price vibes.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Mate I agree wholeheartedly with you. I couldn't give a feck about religion (I think it's abhorrent with an enormous amount of examples as to why it is). Irrespective of my views, who the fck am I to force my opinion on others. He shouldn't have got the job because of his role in the NAB debacle...not because of his religious views that are his and his alone.

Sad day when we take this grandstanding to this level.

I'd urge you to switch SkyNews off for a minute and put down your copy of the Herald-Sun, and actually bring yourself up to speed on this topic.

He was asked to step down as Chair of an organisation that actively promotes values that are in conflict with those of Essendon.

He wasn't stood down because he's a member of a particular congregation, or because of his personal views.

 

[Dave]

...not because of his religious views that are his and his alone.

That's not why he resigned. His position as a leader at an organisation that holds diametrically opposite views to another he held a leadership position at was seen as untenable. If he was a parishioner and nothing more, or a club member and nothing more, it wouldn't have been an issue.

It's not hard to comprehend.

 

[Jetafl]

Essendon president could fall over CEO mess​

MSN

Looks like David Barham is knee deep in boiling water as opposed to hot

 

[Dave]

As he should be

 

[madmug]

It's not a single comment. There is a Youtube channel full of it. Including since he became chair.

Church on a Hill appear to have acted swiftly to delete and/or hide all comments those YT videos since, so you now can't see the comments from their congregation - and some were arguably worse than the videos!

We see this with the US antiabortion warriors of the GOP.

With the public backlash against the SCOTUS Rowe decision, many GOP midterm candidates are deleting their website references that previously supported there hard RW conservative antiabortion position.

They haven't got the guts to show conviction of their own beliefs in order to hide their abhorrent beliefs from the voters.

Like the SCOTUS themselves who lied to the Senate about not going against precedence.

Have beliefs. But at least have the courage of them. Hiding just shows the moral weakness they have.

 

[Power Raid]

Dutton should sack himself for his comments

he has said "the comments re gays and abortion are an abomination but this is separate from the role as CEO and thus he should be re-appointed"

The Arch Bishop should be sacked himself or move to a nation where Hate is lawful

he has quit the Essendon footy club citing "is this how we are going to treat people for their religious beliefs"



Why? The role of a board includes to legal requirement to provide a safe environment. They achieve this through adopting policies, governance and appointing a CEO. The CEO is responsible for VALUES, culture, leadership, creating policies and building a team that reflects the values.

So we have 2 issues here.........1) for the Team working in the organisation to adopt and mould their actions to the VALUES and culture, they need to believe in the values and culture. Seeing the CEO live and breathe those values is a big part of that.

2) The AFL has a draft. Gays and those who have had an abortion (women employees including players) or their partners, don't have a choice of employment due to the draft AND nor should they be forced to look for a safe place of employment.


Religious people a free to have a personal views, as are non-religious people, but both shouldn't ignore they have a legal requirement in other settings. If Dutton a "wanna be PM" doesn't get this, he should resign. If the Arch Bishop wants to preach hate or support hate, perhaps he should find a jurisdiction on the planet that doesn't have anti-discrimination laws and should be investigated in his own organisation as to whether it is a safe place of work.

 

[Jetafl]

As he should be

I think it is fair to say he is cooked.

 

[zeggie]

We see this with the US antiabortion warriors of the GOP.

With the public backlash against the SCOTUS Rowe decision, many GOP midterm candidates are deleting their website references that previously supported there hard RW conservative antiabortion position.

They haven't got the guts to show conviction of their own beliefs in order to hide their abhorrent beliefs from the voters.

Like the SCOTUS themselves who lied to the Senate about not going against precedence.

Have beliefs. But at least have the courage of them. Hiding just shows the moral weakness they have.

Which is what Thorburn can be seen doing right now. Hiding.

Doesn't agree with "everything the church does" but won't step down as chair. He wants to silently endorse the Church's values without the label. Weak.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Apologies if this has already been posted; I'm not going to read through 89 pages of posts, but I think this article does a pretty good job of picking apart the conflicting rights in this situation:

Andrew Thorburn had to choose between Essendon and his church – their values cannot be reconciled | Michael Bradley

Nobody said Thorburn could not hold a leadership position in society, he just couldn’t be CEO of a pro-LGBTQI+ football club

www.theguardian.com

 

[ferrisb]

Would the appointment have been OK if he was simply a member of the church and not its Chair?

Note: I vehemently disagree with the church's views, just trying to get my head around the issue.

 

[gouki88]

Would the appointment have been OK if he was simply a member of the church and not its Chair?

Given the process in which he was hired (his role on the committee to find a CEO and appointing himself) and his resounding failure whilst at NAB, it wouldn't have been a good appointment regardless.

But I don't think the backlash would have been the same, because it's quite a different thing.

 

[Soggy2112]

Would the appointment have been OK if he was simply a member of the church and not its Chair?

Note: I vehemently disagree with the church's views, just trying to get my head around the issue.

Yes.

Because at that point whatever his views are would be his privately held religious beliefs.

He has a leadership position at the church, and what the church teaches is opposed to the values of the Essendon Football Club, thus he can’t hold those two roles simultaneously.

 

[zeggie]

Apologies if this has already been posted; I'm not going to read through 89 pages of posts, but I think this article does a pretty good job of picking apart the conflicting rights in this situation:

Andrew Thorburn had to choose between Essendon and his church – their values cannot be reconciled | Michael Bradley

Nobody said Thorburn could not hold a leadership position in society, he just couldn’t be CEO of a pro-LGBTQI+ football club

www.theguardian.com

I'm not sure if it's been posted, but it's the first time I've read it. Very neutral and very well written. Refreshing to see, for once.

 

[ferrisb]

Given the process in which he was hired (his role on the committee to find a CEO and appointing himself) and his resounding failure whilst at NAB, it wouldn't have been a good appointment regardless.

But I don't think the backlash would have been the same, because it's quite a different thing.

Yeah, the appointment looks wrong on a number of levels.

But I was trying to isolate the issue to his level of involvement with the church.

I like Soggy2112's response, but interested to see others'.

 

[zeggie]

Would the appointment have been OK if he was simply a member of the church and not its Chair?

Note: I vehemently disagree with the church's views, just trying to get my head around the issue.

There's little to no information (or it has been scrubbed) about Thorburn's dealings with the church before he became chair. I think he could have sufficiently, if brought up, swept it under the rug by saying "I don't wish to discuss my religious beliefs".

There still would have been very significant scrutiny based on his NAB tenure. I was gob smacked once he was announced as CEO for that reason alone. But I very much doubt he would have been asked to consider resigning just on that.

 

[Dave]

Apologies if this has already been posted; I'm not going to read through 89 pages of posts, but I think this article does a pretty good job of picking apart the conflicting rights in this situation:

Andrew Thorburn had to choose between Essendon and his church – their values cannot be reconciled | Michael Bradley

Nobody said Thorburn could not hold a leadership position in society, he just couldn’t be CEO of a pro-LGBTQI+ football club

www.theguardian.com

Read that this morning, thought it was a good summation. Of course it aligns with my view so.......

 

[Dave]

Would the appointment have been OK if he was simply a member of the church and not its Chair?

I think so yes. I'm fairly sure there are "people of faith" in CEO roles at other clubs.....

 

[iameviljez]

Would the appointment have been OK if he was simply a member of the church and not its Chair?

Note: I vehemently disagree with the church's views, just trying to get my head around the issue.

If we ignore his track record of bad management at NAB, then yes, it would have been OK.

 

[Satan]

 

[madmug]

Would the appointment have been OK if he was simply a member of the church and not its Chair?

Note: I vehemently disagree with the church's views, just trying to get my head around the issue.

I guess he could have thus have agreed to abide by his legal responsibility as CEO at Essendon.

As Chair of that sect, it's/his core values are at odds with being CEO of an organisation which has quite different values, such as an AFL club.

As some smarty said above it would be difficult to be Chair of Gamblers anonymous & on the board of Aristocrat at the same time!!

 

[zeggie]

I guess he could have thus have agreed to abide by his legal responsibility as CEO at Essendon.

As Chair of that sect, it's/his core values are at odds with being CEO of an organisation which has quite different values, such as an AFL club.

As some smarty said above it would be difficult to be Chair of Gamblers anonymous & on the board of Aristocrat at the same time!!

I guess it may be somewhat similar position to a friend of mine. Committed atheist. Works for an Anglican school. Agreed in no uncertain terms to never refer to their atheist views in the course of their employment. Everyone is happy.

If he/she was President of the Atheist Foundation of Australia? Completely different story.

 

[hawksalltheway]

wow - how out of touch is this guy..... disgraceful

 

[Chief]

Time for the LNP to fire up the "Culture-War-o-Tron".

 

[KAYNE]

Probably not because she’s not the Chief Executive of the organization.

So homophobic views are ok as long as you're not the CEO? I generally don't understand how the pitch fork mob see the need for the CEO to step down but are ok with this. This is a direct homophobic action but gets a free pass