- Nov 23, 2012
We're not discussing whether or not RA should have taken a stance on the referendum issue. If you want to start a thread on that I'll be happy to discuss it there, and we may well be in agreement.Of course, they don't want to alienate fans or players. That's why they should just stay silent on referenda and the like. If they do that then they do not risk narrowing their market. A diverse robust market is what you want in any business. A voluntary action to publically support one or other side of a refendum question is not so reasonable. Do you see the point that it is simply not in their own self interest ?
But on this threa, the question is whether, given that RA have taken a stance, to what extent is it reasonable for them to require their employees not to express open disagreement about the policy on social media.
And while I know that legal conflict around social media use is still an evolving domain, I think employers' rights to require some degree of discretion from their employees is sufficiently well established to more than cover Israel Folau's actions.
Unless, as has been suggested already, it's decided that religious opinions are inherently more worthy of respect than personal ones.