Ok, just from memory which is fine because nobody ever seems to spend a couple of minutes checking out a potential CEO on the internet anymore, I seem to remember that we were promised laws that would stop people being persecuted for their religious beliefs.
And, again from memory, it went something like this:
- Religious organisations should not be forced to employ anyone who didn’t subscribe to their religious beliefs.
- People should not be forced to abandon their religious beliefs because of the organisation they wish to join.
- We will decide what constitutes a religious belief and the circumstances under which these will count…
All right, my memory is a little bit faulty but it does seem to me that this is like the whole free speech thing which seems to be expressed in the popular media – if I’m important enough to have my views amplified by the media – any disagreement is somehow inhibiting my freedom of expression and shouldn’t be allowed…, particularly on Twitter which is just a sewer…
And speaking of Chris Uhlmann, I’m wondered how long it is before he blames wind power for the lack of electricity in Florida…
Anyway, I’m still trying to get my head around the idea of why religious organisations should be allowed to exclude people from employment because they’re atheists who don’t subscribe to their viewpoint but non-religious bodies shouldn’t be allowed to exclude religious people who want to condemn their clients and employers to hell…
Of course, this is all general and has nothing to do with the recent brouhaha about the Essendon CEO who lasted less time in the job than your average Tinder date.
When it comes down to it, he should have never got the job for the obvious reason that he was the person in charge of finding the next CEO.
Let’s be clear here: If you tasked me with the job of finding a replacement for Shaun at “Mad As Hell” and I came back a few weeks later and said after due consideration, I think it should be me, you’d have to think that I was far from a disinterested party and that maybe there was the sort of conflict of interest that meant that I should consider becoming the next Liberal leader rather than a comedian…
Fair point, there isn’t much of a difference these days.
But surely someone who gave him the tick must have noticed that he had NAB on his resume and wondered what he did there. Surely they could have done a quick search and found that he was head when the bank was charging dead people for financial advice and that the Royal Commission found him a wee bit unconvincing.
Still, as he believes in life after death, at least the charging of dead people is consistent with his religious beliefs.
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
