By Martyn Iles
Was it proper to sack Andrew Thorburn?
Many people have said “yes” because his values did not align with the values of Essendon football club.
Here is the problem with that…
…It’s a football club…
The purpose of a football club is to facilitate and promote the playing of footy.
That tells you what is relevant to the club, and what is not.
A player’s skin colour is not relevant, but their fitness level is.
Their favourite TV show is not relevant, but their team spirit is.
You get the picture.
Some things are not relevant. Others are.
Unjust discrimination occurs when someone is adversely treated on *irrelevant* grounds.
So, it’s not discriminatory to sack an unfit player, or a CEO who can’t balance the budget. Indeed, it’s not even unjustly discriminatory to select an able-bodied player over a disabled player… though disability discrimination is wrong in other contexts.
But… someone’s church? That’s NOT relevant to football. It has nothing to do with the subject.
It would be relevant if the organisation had a religious purpose… But it does not.
See how this works?
It’s a well-established pattern.
But it all breaks down when everything becomes political.
Once a political veneer is thrown over all of life, then politics is the litmus test for everything. I suspect that’s where we are… It’s politics first, not sport, with these clubs.
It also breaks down when something is deemed so abhorrent that it completely excludes a person from society altogether. Normally, that’s things like violent crimes, or the promotion of utterly vile and dangerous views.
Could it be that the pro-life, or pro-heteronormative views of the Christian faith are starting to make their way to the vile, unacceptable, outrageous fringe?
Yes, it could be… at least in some sectors.
But Andrew Thorburn did nothing wrong – indeed, he didn’t actually do anything! Also, the views expressed by his church are not vile – they’re true. And, in any event, they’ve nothing at all to do with the job.
Thus, it was not proper to sack him.
