He is just repeating what plenty of religions still teach. Still amazes me that religion is a thing in this day and age, but there you go. I guess this stuff isn't going to die off with Margaret Court after all. Pity.

^ what they said.

I'll take my chances in hell. Who'd want to go to heaven anyway, if it was even real, sounds like it would be just a giant bible bashing party with Christian rock concerts and really stupid rules.

He actually represents what the majority of "by the book" religious people believe.

He just has the balls or stupidity to post it.

He has the freedom to express this and look like a fool at the same time

I praise Folau for embracing and spreading the values of our Lord Almighty. There is only one true saviour in this life, and that is Jesus H Christ. You may not like it but he is what peak performance looks like

I wonder if he drinks. The same verse of the bible he quoted also refers to drunkards going to hell. Or is one drink ok? Is one night with another bloke ok? Interesting conundrum Izzy...

Bullied? Ironic labeling considering the topic he's chosen to speak out on. Stop being offended because the majority of society don't agree with his/your 'beliefs'.

As disappointing and confused as his opinions are, fortunately he finds himself amongst a receding minority disappearing into their depraved ignorant corner.

Thankfully the majority in this country realize the absurdity of his position while appreciating his right to express it as long as he doesn't mind looking s bit stupid while doing so.

G0d created himself before the universe was created. It's like really hard for you to get a grip on right now but if you study the bible you will understand.

taerg si dog
taerg si dog
taerg si dog

So who's the bigger dickhead?
Folau for expressing an opinion, or that twat at Qantas threatening to pull sponsorship because of it.

The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning

It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.

The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.

I do wonder how isy explains the fact that the worlds leading biologists (who's life's work is understanding such things) agree that every studied mammalian species exhibits same sex attraction, and that it occurs with near identical frequency within their populations.

So why would Satan need gay dolphins?

Maybe to the spiritual pauper.

All the best, sir. Godspeed

D2, you're not daniel kickert by any chance?

So the universe had a cause, therefore God.

Urrrm, no that just suggests it had a cause.

Hope Issy likes the company of those that he is damning because the bible also says: 'It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." I would suggest that $2 million a year for playing rugby makes Issy a rich man.

Fear not, spiritual paupers. I, God, will soon host a Q&A on r/nbl so all your questions can be answered

Israel Folau - a highly paid athlete who appears to be functionally literate where a contract is concerned

I'll go first , Dear God, so why do you allow 9 million children under the age of 5 every year to die, the great majority dying screaming in agony of starvation & diharea with their parents desperately preying for help, none of which you answer?

Is it because you can't help or you just don't want to?

Ps. I'm also concerned that they may be damned to suffer for eternity as punishment for not believing in a religion they haven't herd of as your revaluation is yet to rech them, if you can clear that up too I'd be very greateful

Thanks in advance for your reply;)

I'll field this one.

Recent events have brought about a much-needed revolution in our approach to faith. We recognise more people than ever are being brainwashed and distancing themsleves from eternal truth. We have a full 10-year global plan ready to roll out starting in August of this year, with the chief aim to bring faith back to the people. From New York City to Melbourne to the most desolate parts of Central Africa, the faith will reach you and touch you in ways you may never have been touched. It is a brilliant approach, guaranteed to stimulate trickle-down salvation to those willing to accept it. And even those who are not, which I absolutely love.

We do not condemn people to hell for living and dying without knowing of the True Lord, we reincarnate them. Those without knowledge of the cause are born again as purveyors of the truth, so everyone gets a chance. Those who do not open their heart will see the floor open underneath them for the long drop to hell. Sorry not sorry

I saw Jesus yesterday, he looked a little cross

", the faith will reach you and touch you in ways you may never have been touched."

I'm sorry to disappoint but much of the congregation have already experienced this thanks.

So why would Satan need gay dolphins?


Lol, best comment so far




Sorry but time people evolved, no one is coming to save or condemn anyone , it's up to you what you do with your life, religion of any kind is what’s wrong with this entire dam planet

Everyone is happy to preach for freedom of speech, but when someone says something that that person doesn't like the concept goes out the window and it often turns personal.

i.e. freedom of speech has only really become freedom of speech if it coincides with what you believe in. Which really defeats the whole thing.

That turd CEO of theirs telling staff to use 'partner' instead of husband/wife should've been the final straw. What a maggot.

"If you are a non Christian, why would his comments effect you?"

lol indeed, so there are only 2 category's? Christians & non Christian's, only the religious can generalize in that way

In all seriousness, I would defend izzys right to hold his beliefs as strongly as I criticize them, he has the right to hold the I have the right to object.

Public figures expressing that marginalized people are flawed in their very nature regardless of their actions is an incredibly damaging message, sucude rates of the most vulnerable section of this group are why his comments deeply concern me.

What rights are others losing if someone says "Welcome, Isaac" instead of "Welcome, Mr Forman". Or "Your partner will need to sit across the aisle" instead of "Your wife..." My right to be addressed as "Mr"? Not sure if that's a right or a corporate advantage (as a nicety) that's going to outweigh not offending others. My preference is generally not displayed on a boarding pass. I begrudgingly put a title because it's usually a required field, but I think it's ridiculous.

Years ago when registering frequent flyer membership, the title dropdown was massive. You could choose Mr, Mrs, Master, Sir, His Eminence, etc - there were dozens of them. I registered my partner ("wife" even) as "Princess" and out came the membership card. There were a number of amusing encounters at check-in and when phoning the airline after that.

I find the intersection of social conservatism and the corporate pedestal quite interesting. They're odd political bedfellows. Let's say a CEO has the numbers suggesting they can make more money by offending fewer people at the cost of dropping some social/historical niceties? It would be their responsibility to do that.

Everyone is happy to preach for freedom of speech, but when someone says something that that person doesn't like the concept goes out the window and it often turns personal.

People should and can hold any views they wish.

Opinions don't hurt people so Izzy opinion didn't cause harm or result in rioting in the street against the LGBTI community other than the usual nutters who get offended by every opposing view to there own.

As with all open and free societies differing thoughts and viewpoints should be discussed without the mass twitterage of sackings and sponsorship withdrawal threats.

Whilst I don't agree with Izzy's comments I do believe in free speech. He is entitled to say whatever he wants but he must realize there would be ramifications from them. I have opinions on certain matters (I am an atheist) but I don't go out of my way to push them on others. As Ricky Gervais said, "telling an atheist they're going to hell is like telling an adult they're not getting any presents from Santa". If someone disagrees with my views (like many disagree with Folau's) ignore them and move on.

I actually feel sorry for Raelene Castle

She's stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Doesn't want to lose Folau from RU but has to balance against keeping sponsors happy.

I thought she handled well and managed to do enough on both sides to keep the sides happy

I dont get why Sponsors in the modern era are so upset/sensitive..are people really going to stop supporting RA based on what one of their players thinks (and even though RA openly supported gay marriage). A bit of a knee jerk overreaction I thought.

You may not find the changing of what others consider 'normal'titles as anything and thats your right,but those who wish to be recognised as wife/husband/mother/father/Mr/Mrs have as much right as well that was my point,personally Id prefer to be called by my first name,some like formality,I would not like my parental term changed just for social protocol though thats for sure,thats a title I wear with pride,as is my right.

Well, I am still happy to live in a country where we are free to say what we believe, as long as it isn't threatening, racist or defaming and I am also happy that we can be critical of what people say, ask questions and use logic, common sense and science or facts to present our ideas.

Best ignore bigots, you can't fairly win a fight of intellect if only one person brings their intellect!

He can certainly say whatever he wants, but also I can understand sponsors, players and associated brands wanting to distance themselves and denounce. Unfortunately, in the case of people with positions of public influence - their opinions can hurt people. Pretty badly too - whether it be basically publicly giving the green light to schoolyard homophobia, or even just in aspiring young players dropping out of the game or staying in the closet longer, because they know their sexuality *is* an issue in the game, completely outside of their control. This undeniably leads to all sorts of shitty mental health.

Not sure where anyone's going with the partner thing - partner's a flexible term that covers off whether people are married, unmarried, same sex, hetty, whatevs. It's not "PC" so much as literally the easiest way to address a big variety of personal relationships, respectfully.

Manu - can you and everyone that chooses to use the Bible as a scientific document explaining the existence of reality please stop.

It was written by illiterate nomads in the iron age who may never have met Jesus.

As soon as you start an argument with - "The Bible says..." you're point goes out the window.

Taking the piss - really? Would be good to get that clarified.

Great point from jodiechrist about players having the courage to come out while they're still playing.

As is the norm with religion, it aspires to take us back 50 years in our development rather than progress us forward.

rugby australia

[Let's say a CEO has the numbers suggesting they can make more money by offending fewer people at the cost of dropping some social/historical niceties? It would be their responsibility to do that.]

Spot on Isaac.

This is why we should always remain extremely skeptical of any claims of "corporate responsibility" made by CEO's.

You think the AFL, Qantas, etc really care about "inclusivity" or the LGBTIQ community? Think again. They only care when it's commercially convenient.

Corporates are merely political players who are out there trying to please their shareholders and the financial markets.

Anyone who doesn't see this is, as the old saying goes, a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

Sponsors coming out with threats is poor form really just because management of that company has an agenda or opinion on an issue.

How many employees at these company don't agree with the companies position on all issues, take gay marriage, At least 40% of your workforce voted no so you can't sack 40% of your work force because they don't agree with the board/executives position.

1 individuals stance should bring down an entire organisation or its support of a sport/team, people are allowed to think freely.

Ah yeah tattoos. That's another "trend" in our modern society.

Exactly. The CEO of Qantas is using his position to social engineer, instead of doing the job he is paid to do. and to threaten sponsorship withdrawal because of one person's OPINION is yet another questionable act by him. He is abusing his position by trying to put forward his own alternative lifestyle beliefs.

When talking of free speech, I think it's important to acknowledge the difference between free speech *laws* and free speech *culture*.

Legally, we have Section 18c in this country - and we do have similar laws here in Victoria, famously used against Danny Nalliah many years ago- but there aren’t too many onerous legal restrictions on speech. To put it bluntly- This isn’t Pakistan.

However, increasingly we do have an anti free speech culture. There is an increasingly loud minority of people in this country who think that people shouldn’t have a right disagree with them. The most obvious example of this was the Coopers brewery debacle early last year. Hipsters from Brunswick started cancelling their Coopers orders, so Coopers backpedalled faster than you could say "Backpedal!".

So we as individuals need to ask: How much do we care? Do you care enough to try and do whatever small thing you can, to influence this culture?

My wife and I always fly Jetstar. It’s our default first choice of website to check for domestic flights.

Next time we fly, I’ll check Virgin first. And if I have to pay an extra $30 per head to fly with them then I will. (If I have to pay an extra $100 per head, maybe not).

And If I do fly with Virgin, I’ll be shooting off a quick email to Qantas, to let them know the reasons why I’m not flying with their subsidiary. Because they’re managed by grossly hypocritical douchebags in thousand dollar suits whose only goal is profit, but who use alleged interest in social causes to bully others and contribute to a culture of shutting down free speech.

(And don't ask why we don't use webjet- I just find that whole website kind of clunky and annoying).

Personally I think that we as a society have progressed past the narrow-minded thinking and old fashioned values that made the inclusion of multiple sandwiches a requirement of a good picnic.

A culture of free speech is literally the most important value we could have.

And it's in decline.

Our society values diversity of all kinds. Increasingly though we’re losing interest in the most important type of diversity of all - diversity of thought and opinion.

LV, surely Coopers is free to make their video and someone else is free to not purchase their product?

You've just said you'll make a purchasing decision based on a corporate act, the same thing you've implied criticism of someone else for doing?

The difference is, Isaac, I'm counter-protesting against the people who don't like what somebody else is saying.

I'm all FOR using your voice to tell corporates what you want. I'm AGAINST thinking that everybody who disagrees with you in the public square is bigoted and hateful, or shouldn't have their voice heard.

Coopers was doing what every corporate SHOULD be doing. And people got offended. It was the perfect example of what's wrong with the world today. Yes, people did something that's perfectly legitimate- showing their disapproval of a corporate- but they were supporting an idea that is beyond cancerous.

So, yes, people are free to tell Coopers what they want.

We as individuals who actually believe in freedom, pluralism and true diversity need to drown out the snowflakes and authoritarians who try to shut done those with whom they disagree. That's the culture that we as individuals should be trying to foster.

shut down*

"It's the ARU - Australia Rugby Union, not RA or Rugby Australia."

Ah no its Rugby Australia (RA). They rebranded last year. Read it up.

LV has to make a stand against the gays. Since the plebiscite ruined the sanctity of his own marriage if he doesn't make a stand he'd be obligated to marry a man

Gay or not who cares...its seems people get upset about what someones opinion is which means those people need to find something better to do with their time.

Trying to bully or reprimand someone for having an opinion thats different is the beginning of a downward spiral in freedom of expression, thought and speech.

No body is harmed by words so Izzy isn't standing out the front of LGBTI headquarters with tiki torch asking for the death penalty laws to ban people from being gay.

Izzy has a personal opinion thats not exactly dangerous and he is free to have it. If people really think kids are so influenced by sports people they should look at their own parenting skills so children and people in general can make there own informed choices.

He's not being bullied. He's exercising his free speech (which I fully support) and others are doing the same. That's how this works.

[If you think you are doing it for noble reasons while calling others hypocrites for their boycotts, then you are quite ironically being the hypocrite yourself].

I'm not calling anyone a hypocrite.

Qantas are gigantic, epic hypocrites who take hypocrisy to a staggering level. But too much of the public refuse to acknowledge it, and refuse to call out this profit driven hypocrisy that happening in front of our faces.

The people who boycotted Coopers or who support Qantas' comments on Folau aren't necessarily hypocrites at all. But they are badly mistaken, and are supporting ideas that will be hugely unhelpful to free countries and our entire civilization if they continue to spread at their current pace.

In other words, absurd levels of hypocrisy are happening at a corporate level. With obvious motive- profit.

Hypocrisy might be happening at an individual level too- but that's not what I've been criticizing in this thread.

Love izzy, hope he finds the strength to come out one day.

Izzy isn't marginalizing a group of people be expressing his opinion.

I don't much care for Vegan's or Bike Riders but me saying so isn't marginalizing them or hurting there respective feelings.

Peoples feelings get hurt everyday thats life and if someones opinion makes you feel marginalized its time to have a look at yourself and get with the program.

People Pilloried Margaret Court for Expressing her Beliefs.
If she was the CEO of a Major Australian Public Company, and used it as a pulpit for her beliefs would that be acceptable? Or would the throngs be calling for a boycott of said company??

My annoyance at Qantas relates to other issues. (Changing a particular route from Qantas to Jetstar, changes to their FF program, taking over the FIFO business by offering "benefits" then stripping those benefits away.)
So I'll freely admit to being biased against his running of the company.

I thought Nigel Owens got it spot on in his column when he said Folau's comments during the SSM debate were quite reasonable, but the comments now are mean and unnecessary in the public sphere from someone with his prominence.

Reply #684416:
"Can somebody tell me who gods creator is? Or gods creators creator? Or... "

Must God be some separate entity that requires creation? What really is our natural intelligence, love, passion and appreciation of music - charged neurons?

Reply #684436:
"I'll go first , Dear God, so why do you allow 9 million children under the age of 5 every year to die, ..."

That is caused by denial of God. Virtually all of us do it every day ; defaulting to hurtful thoughts, envy, looking around for who the bad people are, etc.

There is an all encompassing God-intelligence that we can choose to have a relationship with (such as, for example, what is happening when we lose our ego-self in music).

Instead we have a planet of the majority doggedly resisting that intelligence in favour of belief in their ego-self and thus CREATING THE WORLD WE CURRENTLY HAVE. The problem or the solution is with us and the solution is in a return to relationship with God.

Wow people getting heated!

Either way people can have an opinion on peoples lifestyle choices gay or straight.

Who cares pretty sure Issy said they are second class citzens so thats in your own little crazy head!

Words don't hurt people so chill out and be thankful as a gay you can be free and open in this country as the vast majority of the world still deem it illegal and punishable by prison or death.

Sexual orientation is not a "lifestyle choice"

The "vast majority" of the world does not consider homosexuality to be illegal (just over to 1 in 3 countries, so far from a majority much less "vast") and only 13 countries have death penalties on the books for it.

Also "as a gay..." is kind of indicative of where you're at.

"That is caused by denial of God. Virtually all of us do it every day ; defaulting to hurtful thoughts, envy, looking around for who the bad people are, etc."

This in response to an example of the volume of suffering visited on millions at this moment serves as the most perfect example of how religion causes otherwise normal people to say and do and believe the most horrible things.

Generally good people do good things & bad people do bad things, to get good people to express opinions as horrific as this you'll need religion.

Please notice the ease with which suffering on unimaginable scale is dismissed as gods will and as just vengeance against believing children. To suggest that your god exacts revenge on a scale that the most prolific genicidal mass murderers could only dream of should make one thing crystal clear, the moral compasses of extreme religious ideology is profoundly damaging to the inate human understanding of what is true and right.

I have to ask, how could any reasonable, moral thinking person believe this as truth and live with themselves.

Listening to izzys coments confirms just how far the rot has spread.

Our Game,

To reiterate, there is no separate-entity-God as many religious people themselves believe and that atheists demand proof of.

There is a battle going on between the ego self and it's material belief system versus the natural, loving, creative intelligence (God) that we each are already a party to (already within us). 'Good people', 'Bad people', atheists, religious people, depressed people, cocky people, myself, are all involved and the outcome is what creates the type of world we have.

The empirical evidence is there for anyone willing but unfortunately the willingness is not at all popular.

Creating a world of pain is simply the ego-self's way of denying our natural Godly self (the ego sees our Godly side as a threat).

Religion and God are not the same thing. Religion is mans doing, so of course it will be subject to corruption. The solution to our suffering is in a shift back to God (natural God as explained above) and certainly not in a shift towards atheism.

BTW, I'd be interested to see what Folau said (thinks) in full context. While it may possibly have been presented accurately I certainly don't trust what I hear in the MSM.

Yes, I see what you're saying. It's only bad if atheists are committed to denial of God. If they are truly committed to being guided by their Godly side then that's great.

Certainly most atheists I know mean well, just as most religious people mean well but how well each understand what is really going on (the cunning ego v God) is more important.

I'm well aware of all the try-hards. That's about your interpretation of what I'm doing. I wrote that in a certain sense. You decide if atheism is a pathway to God but I don't think that's what's subconsciously going on.

AshT

Giving you the benifit of doubt, if you genuinely hold this position, you've wonderfully described the ideology of most atheists, humanism, although I think you could get there without the mental gymnastics & convenient unessusary insertion of the term god.

I'm curious as to the nature of the impirical evidence you mentioned?

Our Game,

I know full well that I was describing atheist ideology, as well as an ideology of most people but you may note above that I used the word 'subconsciously'. There is an important difference between good intention and what is occurring subconsciously.

BTW, I'm neither religious nor atheist and have a grand on North and another grand on Gold Coast so I'm off to watch those.

"What if she was founder and senior pastor of a Pentecostal church and president of an international network of 70+ like-minded churches?"

Not sure that makes a point?
Surely in that role you would expect her to espouse exactly what she did, hardline Biblical doctrine.

"BTW, I'm neither religious nor atheist and have a grand on North and another grand on Gold Coast so I'm off to watch those."

Speaking of subconscious, you sound like a believer to me who's notion of God has receded further & further as the religious loose the argument on every front until left with the ghost of an aboration "internal self gods" and the like. Your choice to insert the word god where it's not needed proves this point.

Not an athiest, so you don't not believe theology.

North looking good, perhaps you do have knowledge no available to the rest of Us:)

@AshT, if you really outlaid those bets you would be rolling in cash after the weekend's AFL results, good one!

Nice weekend pick up @Our Game

Got to love a good weekend on the punt..SEABL as always has been good betting this year to. (Be nice if they'd let punters on for more the $50 thou!)

Passing conversations where they mentioned Your existence
and the fact that you had been replaced by Your assistants
The discussion was theology
and when they smiled and turned to me ,
all that I could say was : ' I believe in You . '

"Not sure it's much of a trend if it's mentioned in the bible..."

Hahaha. It's way trendier today, though.

"I'm not calling anyone a hypocrite."

"Qantas are gigantic, epic hypocrites"

Our Game,

No, we can't be implying right-brain thought processes (eg. via the subconcious,unconcious,creative) are that legitimate, can we? Rigid Left-brain thinking is the domain of mans BELIEF in a material world happening upon him. I see it all the time.

The reason I 'insert the word God' is because the all encompassing natural intelligence, being party to who we already are, is what man has always been referring to, as much as man has the habit to battle against it and thus distort what is meant by 'God'. It is not a belief. It is already there. Just as our natural intelligence, love, passion and appreciation of music are some example's of it but for theorists who may prefer to explain those away as must be a product of charged neurons - perhaps the beat of the base drum causes neurons to vibrate against brain tissue causing a pleasnt sensation that eases our troubles away?

For those who don't get my point, losing yourself in music is an example of having a relationship with God (real God, not a misty figure in a cloud).
Relationship with our God side inspires, thus eases our troubles away. It is the solution to man made suffering, which is caused by our subconcious attempts to deny true God.

No doubt we can go around in circles for a long time.

The ceo of rugby australia should be terminated , they should get someone who knows whats there doing as ceo.

Glad he got paid....

just heard on ABC news that speculation is $7m. payout to F.

Glad its over and I can go back to not seeing Folau in my news feed.

Rugby Australia did what anyone should do when caught in an argument with someone making irrational arguments (and something I should do more often), say "yeah sorry" and walk away

Settlements of this nature is a "lets just pay them to go away so we can move on".

Glad it's finished, RA did the right thing and demanded that their employees don't put their objectives and values into disrepute - any business has the right to do so.

A lot of people assume freedom of speech/religion entails carte blanche speech which is simply not the case. It means you can likely avoid prosecution by Government, not avoid all and any consequences that arise from speech.

I'd like some thoughts on the church/other church goers from this point. Does the church get in trouble for preaching these messages ? Do the other church goers get in trouble from their employers for having the same beliefs ?
Or does it purely come down to that fact that Folau declared his on Social Media and that he's such a prominent figure ?
Genuine question.
I mean, if society want this kind of talked stopped, shouldn't they be looking to stop the source instead of stopping just Folau.

I ask because it was mentioned previously by one of the Islander heritage players that "they'd need to get rid of all of us then" or something along those lines, as they all have similar religious beliefs. Is the distinction in that Folau thinks it and declares it and the others just think it ?

It's sad that as always it had to come down to money, but I guess $8M is a lot on vindication.

RA had three basic problems:

Firstly, you've got the rather obviously fuelled rumours that their Major Sponsor Qantas (Alan Joyce) pressured them to dump Folau. Reality is, you don't even want Castle being asked that under oath in court.

Secondly, they were always facing an uphill battle. It's fundamentally illegal to sack somebody because of their religion. Period.
It's difficult to argue in court that he wasn't sacked because of his Religion, but only because of the comments he made (because of his Religion.)
Just on that, Castle shot their whole case right in both feet in the initial hearing. When asked by the Tribunal Chair, she admitted she would have sacked Folau for posting a picture of an actual Bible verse.
This isn't come obscure text cloaked with "religion." She actually admitted she would sack somebody for quoting the Bible.

Finally, you have the World Cup debacle, which has ARU fans calling for her head anyway. She and the board are in survival mode, and this is one more thing she didn't need.

Not to sound wankery, but i think the average person on the street dissecting the situation is discussing this using the term "freedom of religion" and applying the constitutional context assuming it extends to this matter.

That's not right, it's broadly irrelevant and any interpretation of that won't be given by a tribunal. It's not a question of law in respect of constitutional law - if it was the matter would be the High Court not the Federal Court.

This is a commercial matter sent to the tribunal from the FCA, so the questions are commercial questions: ie, antidiscrimination act, workplace/other industrial laws.

Whether RA is able to terminate is dictated by 1) Question of the Contract in respect of the term allowing termination for such conduct and then 2) Whether that contractual term complies with the relevant workplace legislation.

So, the question isn't whether Folau can't be terminated because of some broadly applied constitutional interpretation of freedom of religion. Of course, the Federal Government makes it confusing when they discuss legislation with a name "Religious Freedoms Act".

What the Folau matter was never going to provide, is 1) whether there's some broad freedom of religion/how far it extends; 2) any sort of vindication on the ground of freedom of religion.

All this really tells us, is like most matters of workplace suits, the business paid the former employee to go away. Traditionally when this occurs it's not seen as "the business paid they must have done wrong, the person is vindicated", it's "the business had to get rid of xx, is it worth the risk of being troubled by this person?"