Big Nana,

Because religious belief is presumably the motivation behind Folau’s comment.

<<... why did you bring religion into this?>>

Furthermore, you spoke of sin, and sin is a specifically religious concept.

<<I never mentioned religion specifically …>>

You didn't have to.

<<... because many people hold these type of views without being religious.>>

Yes, but they are somewhat of topic. You seem very keen to make them a part of the discussion, though.

<<And nowhere did I mention hell or punishment.>>

I know, and as I explained, this omission of yours is partly why your analogy failed.

<<My example was just that some people believe homosexual behaviour is wrong.>>

But you compared them to a religious person (i.e Folau), using a specifically religious concept (i.e. sin), so I cannot take any responsibility for the confusion in this instance, sorry.

<<As for not having a choice, people always have a choice.>>

Incorrect. People cannot choose their sexuality. You may be able to switch back and forth as you please, but most of us aren't bisexual.

Land rights for Left-Handed Lesbian Aboriginal Harp Seals !

"Just read your bigoted post Agronomist."

Fabulous GrahamY. Although I do think it might help if you read it again.

"You obviously have a problem with evangelical Christians or you wouldn't label them bigots."

Indeed I do have a problem with evangelical Christians. The problem I have is they want to insist everyone behaves like they say people should and they are intolerant of all alternative behaviours. The latter is why I call them bigots.

"So, in a slightly more enlightened spirit than your own post, what gives you the right to inflict your opinion on others while Folau lacks that right(in your view)?"

I didn't say this. It is why I suggest you should read my post again. I spoke about responsibilities as well as rights. It is about how and where I voice my opinion. I have no "right" to voice my opinion on this blog. You could ban me for saying certain things.

"And please explain why you think employers have the right to dictate what their employees think about things that have nothing to do with their employment."

I wrote nothing about thinking. How can an employer control what you think? I wrote: "Folau can continue to say whatever he likes - he might just have to do so while pursuing some other activities."

Yes, if I say things publicly that embarrass my employer or risk a serious financial impact on their business, I would expect that they would call me in for a dressing down.

Agronomist,

<<Indeed I do have a problem with evangelical Christians. The problem I have is they want to insist everyone behaves like they say people should and they are intolerant of all alternative behaviours. The latter is why I call them bigots.>>

Is it OK with you that your anti-evangelical statement (as illustrated here) is behaviour that others should emulate?

Seems to me you engage in a self-defeating argument. You oppose one kind of bigotry (evangelical Christians) and support a non-evangelical perspective, which is just as bigoted as the other one.

//All Christians should be permitted in a democracy that promotes free speech and freedom of religion, to be able to engage in plain talk about their Christian faith.//

And so should everybody else. Anybody should be free to criticise another's opinions as offensive and wrong, even if said opinions are somebody's deeply held religious beliefs.

As for the notion that sponsors voicing their concerns over how their brands are being represented represents some sort of closet fascism: what a load of bollocks. He who pays the piper call the tune; if sponsors don't like the tune being played they're well within their rights to say so. It's not like they're being forced to sponsor anybody; they'll only do it as long as they think it is in their best interests. Don't they have a right to free speech to say that they don't want to be associated with certain views?

So far I think the most sensible words I've read on this subject was this comment from Peter Fitzsimons:

“He’s had his free speech, I’ve had my free speech and millions of Australian’s have had their free speech. Mate, Pull your bloody head in.”

Probably mostly a storm in a teacup. Folau doesn't speak for Rugby Australia and Rugby Australia made it clear that they don't share Folau's views on gays. Qantas hasn't threatened to pull their sponsorship in any reports I've seen.

Rugby Australia certainly has the right to call a player in and tell them that they are a business trying to appeal to a broad community and anti-gay statements don't help that. Especially since they are paying him $1.5 million/yr. He can make up his own mind what tweets he sends out in future. I know of a business paying a young graduate $30,000/yr who didn't like the casual clothes she wore to work saying that it reflected poorly on the business when clients came to the office. She protested, similar to Folau's defenders, that she was a free person who did her job well and the clothes she wore had nothing to do with the job. She didn't get much support from her co-workers. Scroll forward 20 years and she is now a big shot with the full corporate business suit look, 7 days a week.

As mentioned by another poster we can reasonably assume that Folau also believes that Jews and Muslims are going to hell for eternity if they don't recognise the true faith. It is difficult to believe that there would be as much support if he had tweeted that, as there has been for his anti-gay tweet.

The most important take-away from this affair is probably "It doesn't really matter much what Israel Folau says."