And don’t make decisions based on faith. Make them based on fact.
I would argue that discrimination is never correct.
Really do not get the bile against Thorburn.
That is so wrong and is slander in a public domain. Don’t know Thorburn, but know people who do and he is a highly regarded bloke. Time at the Bank didn’t end well, but everyone makes mistakes.
Being vilified on BBlitz for being a Christian is a bit much.
2 Likes
He’s explicitly named within the royal commission in regards to taking fees for no service. Don’t think it’s slanderous to consider that stealing.
4 Likes
fark carlton sympathiser
3 Likes
He was chairman of City on a Hill church which preaches that homosexuality is a sin and even said that having an abortion was similar to a concentration camp.
Sorry but these types of religious zealots have no place on a board of a football club.
He was given the chance to remove himself from his role at the church and he refused so good riddance
5 Likes
How good has Vozzo been to this point. Just gets on with the business of turning our footy club back into a footy club. I’m a fan so far.
9 Likes
I find it hilarious that he paints himself as a victim.
He wasn’t told that he wasn’t allowed to have whatever ■■■■■■ up beliefs he has, he was asked to stand aside from a prominent role in an organisation that expresses views publicly that are at odds with the club’s stance and the broader community’s stance on some very hot topics.
Silly ■■■■ is still listing himself as ‘on sabbatical’, which basically means that the club and its members are paying him to self-flagellate. He’s not going to get another prominent leadership job in this country if he’s not prepared to stand down from that board. He’ll probably end up on Sky News, another member of the ‘silent’, ‘persecuted’ majority.
*Note: looking at the website he’s not even listed on the board of city on a hill any more, proving that people can actually learn from their mistakes 
*
4 Likes
he was on the big NAB coin long enough to have a an investment portfolio big enough that he probably doesn’t even need to work if he doesn’t want to and can just live of dividends and whatever other passive income he’s established for himself.
3 Likes
Of course it can be: there are two meanings to discrimination.
That is discrimination, pure and simple.
2 Likes
Ice is right, you can’t fire someone over their beliefs. That is absolute discrimination
If Essendon had such a problem with his beliefs they should of done a proper background check before hiring him
2 Likes
It’s not discrimination, it’s a choice. The two roles were incongruous.
People in senior roles have to record their interests and when those interests are in conflict they need to declare them. The board decides whether those conflicts are tolerable, this one was not.
It’s not his beliefs, his religion, his race, his colour, his sexuality, or anything to do with something he can’t change. It’s a ceremonial role on a board that conflicts with the role he was offered at Essendon.
9 Likes
It’s like none of you have done basic company compliance. If you’re a director of an entity that contravenes your employer’s stance you can be asked to make a choice.
12 Likes
It is discrimination and it isn’t allowed, hence the payout. But a simple check would have shown that and if they club really felt that way they should have not considered hiring him in the first place.
However I would say the club leaders had no issue with it and it only became an issue because fans were outraged and they reacted accordingly.
It is still discrimination though.
2 Likes
Not if you just hired them after doing thorough background checks.
The payout was the easy way to get a ceo to ■■■■ off
IT sneaky edit
2 Likes
I didn’t edit anything other than to change “the” to “they”.
I have no visibility of the employment contract, verbal contracts nor any claims but I struggle to see a case for discrimination. Maybe wrongful dismissal, but to me it’s a just a clear-cut failure in governance (Essendon is world leading at employee due diligence) and a payout to minimise everyone’s embarrassment.
Edit: Depending on how the club worded things there might be a case for discrimination by association, but that would only stand up if he was told to cease associating with / participating in the church as opposed to simply resigning his role on the board.
3 Likes
lol nah not quite
rule number one in business - don’t fk with the money
the only thing that gets immediate action is an imminent loss of recurring revenue
such as (pulling hypothetical examples out of thin air) the loss of a major sponsor, or the inability to field a team
He wasn’t vilified or discriminated against for being a christian. fmd.
1 Like