Opinion Non-Crows AFL 6: This Is Getting Cruel

[Sanders]

Exactly. The choice was between being the chairperson on his church’s board or CEO of Essendon.

Nothing to do with his religious beliefs.

Now if it was an ultimatum between attending the church or being CEO of Essendon that’s a different story.

He was asked to publicly repudiate his church and beliefs.

If you can’t see that, then that is on you. Nothing to do with the facts of the matter

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

He was asked to publicly repudiate his church and beliefs.

If you can’t see that, then that is on you. Nothing to do with the facts of the matter

No, he wasn't asked to repudiate his Christianity.

You made that up!

 

[1970crow]

No, he wasn't asked to repudiate his Christianity.

You made that up!

Pretty sure it was reported that he was.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Lol, he was not asked to give up his Christianity!

 

[1970crow]

No, he wasn't asked to repudiate his Christianity.

You made that up!

to keep his job he had to separate himself from the beliefs of his church. You’re wrong, as usual.

 

[2025]

The views that were objectionable were those related to his Church, which claims to be Christian, but are not found in the actual teachings of Christ in the new testament.

 

[Sanders]

The views that were objectionable were those related to his Church, which claims to be Christian, but are not found in the actual teachings of Christ in the new testament.

No, not even that. They were the views expressed by a member of that church a couple of years earlier. In a sermon I think?

 

[WetCrow1991]

You’ll just deny the veracity or change the goal posts, but it was pretty commonly referred to and no doubt underpins the action that he’s taking against the club.

But here it is anyway Fonz.
View attachment 1549359

Clearly as a former banking executive he couldn't continue on with his religious beliefs if he didn't hold some form of power.

 

[1970crow]

The views that were objectionable were those related to his Church, which claims to be Christian, but are not found in the actual teachings of Christ in the new testament.

Is this meant to have any relevance to the matter being discussed?

 

[Sanders]

Is this meant to have any relevance to the matter being discussed?

Wouldn’t imagine so. It is superficially edgy though and some people really like that sort of thing

 

[1970crow]

Wouldn’t imagine so. It is superficially edgy though and some people really like that sort of thing

Clutching at straws I reckon. Fonz thinks it’s a winner after somehow missing what was widely reported. So in his deluded mind, he’s now right again. ‘Ok, so that was reported, but LOL it’s not in teachings of Christ in the New Testament’.

 

[Mostyn]

Hahahaha

He was given a choice between his church and his job.

Can’t imagine the case will be too difficult for his lawyers

He was given a choice between publicly standing by prejudiced views that no business would align with, and his job.

The religion element is irrelevant.

 

[Sanders]

He was given a choice between publicly standing by prejudiced views that no business would align with, and his job.

The religion element is irrelevant.

Yeah, that’s not true.

 

[Mostyn]

He was asked to publicly repudiate his church and beliefs.

If you can’t see that, then that is on you. Nothing to do with the facts of the matter

He wasn't asked to repudiate his church.

He was asked to distance himself from views that have zero place in a modern workplace and I'm sure would clash with the stated policies of Essendon Football Club.

No one cares what superstitions people believe in - it only matters when it enters the workplace and influences their behaviour and work relationships.

It's obviously the views and not the religion. No one would say "I can't work with him, he's Christian", but there's a great chance someone would say "I can't work in an environment being lead by a homophobe".

 

[Slippery Pete]

He was asked to distance himself from views that have zero place in a modern workplace

Which ones?

 

[Sanders]

This bloke didn’t make these comments, it’s not his job to stand by or reject them.

He was given a choice to reject his personal, protected, right to freedom of religious association or his job.

It’s not going to cause his lawyers too much trouble. At. All.

What’s more troubling is how he went from member of executive search team, to preferred candidate. That’s dodgy as F*** and he probably should never have been given the job.

Once you accept that, he was pretty grotesquely discriminated against

 

[1970crow]

He wasn't asked to repudiate his church.

He was asked to distance himself from views that have zero place in a modern workplace and I'm sure would clash with the stated policies of Essendon Football Club.

No one cares what superstitions people believe in - it only matters when it enters the workplace and influences their behaviour and work relationships.

No, that’s not correct, he did what you suggested he needed to do, but Essendon required he stand down as chair from the organisation. And that’s a reported quote from the president.

Essendon will he paying him out, it’s all but a certainty.

 

[Sanders]

He wasn't asked to repudiate his church.

He was asked to distance himself from views that have zero place in a modern workplace and I'm sure would clash with the stated policies of Essendon Football Club.

No one cares what superstitions people believe in - it only matters when it enters the workplace and influences their behaviour and work relationships.

That’s just wrong. And frankly, the sort of wrong you should be better than.

The law around this is not grey

 

[Sanders]

Which ones?

The ones someone else expressed

 

[1970crow]

This bloke didn’t make these comments, it’s not his job to stand by or reject them.

He was given a choice to reject his personal, protected, right to freedom of religious association or his job.

It’s not going to cause his lawyers too much trouble. At. All.

What’s more troubling is how he went from member of executive search team, to preferred candidate. That’s dodgy as F*** and he probably should never have been given the job.

Once you accept that, he was pretty grotesquely discriminated against

I’m actually comfortable with the discrimination and him losing his gig, but it just happens to come with dollar value consequences. I don’t understand why people feel the need to deliberately ignore fairly plain and obvious realities.

 

[Sanders]

I’m actually comfortable with the discrimination and him losing his gig, but it just happens to come with dollar value consequences. I don’t understand why people feel the need to deliberately ignore fairly plain and obvious realities.

I’ve been advised by our lawyers in the past to unfairly dismiss senior executives. The maximum award was less than the hassle. Just write the cheque and move on

Discrimination isn’t limited though

The idea of holding someone to account for what another person said, years earlier is for the birds. It’s obviously wrong

 

[1970crow]

So old mate stated his views were not aligned with those of the church. But was still provided the ultimatum to quit being chair of the church or he couldn’t continue as CEO. I’ll admit that I don’t know the extent of this rags degree of far rightedness, it I do trust that they quote reliably.

Andrew Thorburn resigns as Essendon CEO after one day over links to controversial church | Essendon | The Guardian

Essendon says City on a Hill’s values are in ‘direct contradiction’ with its own, as Daniel Andrews labels its views on homosexuality and abortion ‘appalling’

amp.theguardian.com

 

[Sanders]

He didn’t say it, and it pre-dated his involvement?!?!!

Where’s the fairness and equity?

 

[Scorpus]

This bloke didn’t make these comments, it’s not his job to stand by or reject them.

He was given a choice to reject his personal, protected, right to freedom of religious association or his job.

It’s not going to cause his lawyers too much trouble. At. All.

What’s more troubling is how he went from member of executive search team, to preferred candidate. That’s dodgy as F*** and he probably should never have been given the job.

Once you accept that, he was pretty grotesquely discriminated against

Except as you admitted earlier he wasn't asked to reject his religious association, only his chairman role. He wasn't asked to leave the church or his religion

 

[WaynesWorld19]

He wasn't asked to repudiate his church.

He was asked to distance himself from views that have zero place in a modern workplace and I'm sure would clash with the stated policies of Essendon Football Club.

No one cares what superstitions people believe in - it only matters when it enters the workplace and influences their behaviour and work relationships.

It's obviously the views and not the religion. No one would say "I can't work with him, he's Christian", but there's a great chance someone would say "I can't work in an environment being lead by a homophobe".

So does this also apply to players ......because it currently doesn't .....only it appears to non-essential administrators ....what about front office staff ?