The answer is more simple.
Prepare for the inevitable war between ideologies.
It's now a fundamentalist world as fundamentalist on all sides clash.
Fundamentalist climate deniers, fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Islam, fundamentalist Buddhism, fundamentalist conservatives, and in the case of Folau, fundamentalist libertarians, the worst of the evil mix.
It's the latter that must be brought to its knees.

Dan

"fundamentalist climate deniers" is as much an oxymoron as scientific consensus. You climate crazies are the fundamentalists, i.e. insisting on a strict literal interpretation of the scripture of your silly new religion

Little

Physics, Chemistry, and many other science disciplines uphold climate science.
Satellites inform us about CO2 and how the Troposphere is warming while the lower Stratosphere is cooling, exactly as scientists have stated. Objective data obtained from sophisticated technology.

But, Folau's views are no different to what many fundamentalist Christians believe. When I was young, preachers tried to scare us with stuff like that.

Temperature is driven by solar activity and the distance/orientation of the earth from the sun. That's science. There's been a steady increase in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution with no corresponding trend in temperature. Climate craziness is a religion. Folau is entitled to state his beliefs. You have no right to wreck our society and economy by forcing your dumb faith on us.

Dear Grahamy,

I think there is another conversation around where we have taken our society, where consumerism is now king, where hospital patients are now clients, and our pubic institutions are being replaced by corporations.

Is it any wonder why the public, who have seen their political power through their elected representatives ceded to powerful business interests, have started to realise the power of withdrawing custom from a corporation.

I know those who have promoted big business, who have taken money for influence from big business, who have overseen the takeover of public institutions and utilities by big business, and who have sought to secure tax relief from big business might be disconcerted by the public exercising the power of the consumer boycott. Indeed in some instances they have tried to outlaw it. The BDS movement is an example, Gunns legislation another.

The corporatisation of our sporting codes has seen may undesirable things enter into that world. Visually polluting animated signage now distracts from games. The names of our sporting grounds are sold off to the highest bidder, free to air Saturday afternoon AFL broadcasts are a thing of the past, captured by pay TV, corporate boxes elbow out public seats at most of our grounds, and the scourge of betting infiltrates every knook and cranny. The AFL boss now takes home millions of dollars annually.

The public have found that withdrawing custom is an effective tool. I'm not about to blame them for using it. Will there be instances where it will be misused, sure, but those who have made this bed better get use to it.

Yep we have Vegan terrorist who literally destroy business's illegally fined $1 by leftist judges and the homosexual activist hijacking business's like qantas while allowing their co partner Emirates to stone homosexuals and still taking the higher moral ground. The unbelievable irony of this bigotry by leftist is they claim not to believe in God or hell and then claim they are deeply offended by this 'imaginery' place or God. They are so full of hatred for truth they can't see their own hypocrisy.

Graham,

Maybe it is the drunks, fornicators, etc, who are trying to avoid and misrepresent criticism. Yet many of us could be, or have been, multiple examples.

Then again, Power can be appropriated by money. Sponsors?? Surely not?

All in all those who are attacking Falau are attempting to apply Brandolini's law.

https://www.nature.com/news/take-the-time-and-effort-to-correct-misinformation-1.21106

The attack is asymmetrical to its validity.

This seems diengenious and seems to almost be like the author doesn't understand free speech? The Government is not jaling him, or abusing him for what he is saying.

Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. His employer advised him not to offend thier sponsors, who pay him, and then he ignored them and did it again. So he will be dismissed. He knew this was coming.

He's free to keep stating his opinion and people are free to call him out on it, or agree with it. So quite the contrary free speech is being upheld. If I walk into a church and start saying all the Christians should be castrated, should I be able to, or should the church be able to boot me out? I'd suggest they have every right to boot me out.

Wether you agree with employment law, or what he's saying is another matter but don't conflate that with free speech.

Wise words, Graham. But, it's vicious out there and it will only get worse, I believe

I get it. There are consequences for those who choose to speak out, but not for those who choose to gag them. That's fair!

The obvious point Israel made was that all are sinners and without repentance and faith in Jesus Christ we are headed for hell. It is only the Christophobes who claim not to believe in Him that have made it a tolerance, homosexual, diversity issue.

Valley guy.

Your way behind the game.
It's easy to overturn your logic.
Folau, you say, was exercising free speech. That part is true. He was also exercising free will.
It is not the consequences in question here.

What is in question is who sets the penalty.
In this case Qantas. But that in itself is not exactly correct is it. It was an edict shunted down the line in Quantas, supporting the personal preferences and morality of the CEO,
who is a politically active gay rights campaigner.

If Folau did actually have a right to free speech, a penalty against him, (however coercive), would actually be illegal.

There is also another factor involved in this case, the deliberate confusion created by the libaterians, between Folau's condemnation of homosexuality, and its lack of direct personal attack.

So, under the rules created by Qantas, and largely supported by the uneducated anarchistic masses, such as youself, it is an unacceptable crime against a minority group to condem Muslims, Christians, bike riders, joggers, and any group considered morally superior my the majority! Loudest voice with the most influence wins, hands down.

Democracy is dead. Don't worry about God being dead.
Coincidentally, Democracy was born at the death of God.
The philosophical question for us now in the West is; what takes its place.

The answer is also obvious. Market forces through neoliberal policies of privatisation.
Dare not criticise, or you lose your privileges.
We are now totally ruled by private enterprise corporations divorced from any attachment to Democracy.
They are the Rulers of the entire economic Kingdom; we but the Serfs.

Dan.

I don't know what your social, religious, or political opinions are, Mr. Valley Guy. But I hope your employer finds them so offensive that he sacks you from your job for expressing them publically on a public forum. Maybe then you might grow a brain and figure out that no employer has the right to tell their employees what to think, say, or write.

If you went into a church and demanded that Christians be castrated, you would be guilty of inciting violence, which is one of the few generally accepted limits on freedom of speech involving political, social, and religious opinions.

Freedom of speech in Australia today ends with the supposedly hurt feelings of some leftist approved minority group. 18C was initially limited to the hurt feelings of races (except the white race who are fair game), but now is being extended to homosexuals, and will soon be extended again to Muslims (but never to Christians). This "mission creep" was predicted and has come to pass. It only needs to be extended again to politicians, political leaders, and political policy and we can join Venezuela in yet another socialist paradise

The irony here is that, although OLO did experience the direct vicious campaigning of gay activists in 2010, in the current imbroglio that group seems silent. It seems they can now afford to act sensibly, not seeing any personal threat in the articulation of perfectly ordinary views by an ordinary Christian believer. No, the noise is coming from professional virtue signallers who are trying to protect 'organisational reputations' (as if a corporation can have a religion). As a result, what they say is nonsense or hypocrisy or both. They should hang their heads in shame.

By signing and accepting the $4 million that
Israel Folau did, part of the contract was
not putting anything on social media that
may potentially offend.

Twelve months ago he was hauled in and told,

"Please do not do that again." And he agreed not to.

12 months later he's done it again.

Rugby Australia has decided that under their own codes
this is not acceptable behaviour. Especially from someone
that did sign a contract and agreed to certain terms.
And was warned that if he persisted in his behaviour
there would be consequences.

Rugby Australia and the NSW Rugby Union have made repeated
attempts to contact Mr Folau both directly and via his
reps since last week and at this point he has failed
to communicate directly with either organisation.

This is not about restricting his "freedom of speech."
This is about the consequences of breaking the terms of
the contract that he signed and agreed to and for which he got very generously renumerated. He'd already been warned.
He chose to ignore everything.

It was his choice. And Rugby Australia under the terms of
the contract had every right to sack him.

cont'd ...

Now before I get attacked by the usual suspects
I want to add that I am not saying that I
agree with the decision of Rugby Australia.
And I am not anti-religion. All I am doing is
pointing out that under the terms of the contract
that Folau signed and agreed to, and after the
warnings he'd received - Rugby Australia was within
its rights - right or wrong, to do what they did.

Foxy is technically correct but I reckon that in usual circumstances nothing would be done to enforce such a contract unless a complaint was received. Who complained?

Dear TomBie,

The following link explains further:

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/folau-ignored-my-warning-says-rugby-australia-chief-castle-20190415-p51ee3.html

Rugby Australia Chief - Castle said that Folau is not
being punished for his religious beliefs.

"This is not a religious discussion this is a
discussion around the employee-employer relationship and
the values and contractual arrangements within that agreement.
That's the basis on which we've served him a breach notice."

He'been warned many times.

respect is due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights of others.
I'd say Folau has showed respect by expressing his beliefs without singling out homosexuals from others that he thinks are destined to go to hell irrespective of their sexual preferences. Unless his contract says he's not entitled to express his religious beliefs, he should be OK.
If it says otherwise, he should be OK anyway, if there's any justice in the world

How come nobody's come to the defence of thieves, drunks and fornicators ?

The fox on the run says, ok by her if Folau signs away his rights!
Well, it's not really.

Convention has it, its the employers right to insist employees make no public comment on internal business affairs.
That rule is fair and just.

Australians as citizens though, have a right to practice and live out their religious beliefs.
That right is called freedom of religion.

Quantas (and thus by extension, Alan Joyce the CEO,), have no right to remove that privilege from an Australian citizen.

Dan

Dear Loudmouth,

You asked; "How come nobody's come to the defence of thieves, drunks and fornicators ?"

I suspect it is because for most people sexual attraction toward a particular gender is not something they have a choice over.

I certainly have control over my fornication, and my drunkenness, but both are biologically imprinted on me (well I reckon they are). So how is that different from homosexuality Steele? I don't accept that being gay is solely biological, but even if it were, how is it different from these other behaviours? I can choose not to act on the impulse.

Christianity, and Judaism, believes that man is in a fallen state and needs to rise above it. And most of us try to rise above our default state all the time. We spend inordinate amounts of money on education, and health, to try to make people better versions of themselves. Gym memberships would be zero if everyone accepted that how you are today is how you should want to be.

Folau wants us to be better. You just don't agree with his definition of better. That is not a basis for bouncing a guy from a job he is probably the best person he can be at.

Dear GrahamY,

You write;

“I certainly have control over my fornication, and my drunkenness, but both are biologically imprinted on me (well I reckon they are). So how is that different from homosexuality Steele? I don't accept that being gay is solely biological, but even if it were, how is it different from these other behaviours? I can choose not to act on the impulse.”

And Paul felt it was better not to marry seeing the sexual act problematic with a proper worshipping of Jesus.

“Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

This is Christian teaching. So if sex gets in the way of 'devotion to prayer' why haven't you chosen not to act on the impulse?

You said;

“Christianity, and Judaism, believes that man is in a fallen state and needs to rise above it. And most of us try to rise above our default state all the time.”

And there many of us, over half the nation in fact, decided we would be better people if we moved past our traditional views about homosexuality and removed the constraints on same sex marriage.

You said;

“Folau wants us to be better. You just don't agree with his definition of better.”

Agree. But more than that he wants to enjoy a fundamentalist mindset where the belief in the inerrency of the Bible presents a path stripped of doubt and nuance.

“That is not a basis for bouncing a guy from a job he is probably the best person he can be at.”

I'm not sure you are as familiar with fundamentalist Christianity as I am. There will be part of him which will be reveling in what he has chosen to 'sacrifice'. However what bounced him from his job was, as I outlined in my earlier post to you, people and organisations threatening to withdraw their custom from his employer. Simple as that.

In the USA, where freedom of speech is guaranteed in the Constitution, Israel Folau's employer would not have been allowed to put any caveat on his contract to deny his freedom to speak on any political, social or religious subject he chose. It would be a civil rights issue and actionable in court. You remember civil rights? It is what real liberal progressives used to defend. Today, pseudo liberal progressives just seize upon any left wing cause the leaders of their Brahmin caste declare are progressive causes, even if that cause is anti civil rights.

Thus we have people on OLO who think that they are liberal progressives who actually oppose free speech. That is as stupid as a person who says that they are a feminist, defending Islam. Their concept of free speech is that they support it entirely, as long as you don't say anything the left does not like.

Israel Folau did not incite people to violence. He did not break the Official Secrets Act. He did not give direct instruction on how to commit criminal acts. Nor did he libel anyone. He merely stated that under his religious teachings, certain classes of people were after death, destined for some imaginary fantasyland he calls Hell.

I regard myself as being at least three of those classes of people destined for this imaginary "Hell" and what Israel said does not offend me at all. My response would be to just give Israel two fingers full of righteous indignation.

Every one of us considers that some classes of people are beyond contempt. There is nothing wrong with that and it is perfectly normal. Trying to prevent all human hostility through legislation is insane.

The fact remains that Folau did have a choice
in not signing and agreeing to the conditions
of his contract with Rugby Australia. He chose
to sign and agree to those conditions.

He was warned many times about the repercussions
if he chose to break those conditions. He
chose to ignore the warnings.

His actions came with consequences.

His right to freedom of speech should be respected.
However he forfeited that right when he signed and
agreed to the contract. Rugby Australia - decided that
under their own codes and the terms to which Folau
had agreed - his behaviour was not acceptable
behaviour. Folau did not have to sign that contract -
yet he chose to do so. The same as he chose to violate
his contract. The onus is entirely on him.

The Rugby Australia Chief - Castle has made it quite
clear - she said that folau is not being punished
for his religious beliefs.

"This is not a religious discussion - this is a
discussion around the employee - employer relationship
and the values and contractual arrangements within that
agreement - that's the basis on which we've served him
a breach notice."

Employers are entitled to do that - whether here or in
the US or elsewhere. I've lived and worked in the
US for close to ten years - so I know.

don't accept that being gay is solely biological

I'm inclined to agree with GY's assessment. It appears to be agenda based to a great degree & massively exploited by the Feminist movement.
Homosexuality has been around since Day 1 & if it weren't for them we wouldn't have an entertainment industry. There are highly intelligent people in that group but they don't go around throwing their sexuality into our faces like so many of those "Gays" do.
There's an openly gay politician in the present Federal Govt who I believe would make a very competent PM.
There are very high ranking female Gays in the ALP too but they don't appear to have the nuance of the level of the Liberal.
Folau's only crime is that he upset his employers, some of whom could possibly be closet gays.

Is it possible for any contract to be legal if it demands a person relinquish their freedom to speak?
In regard to the quotation being homophobic this is not true. Christianity has no phobias It is about unselfish love.Phobia implies an irrational fear and dislike of something. Christianity is not fearful of practising gays.In this case the Apostle Paul was warning the tiny Christian community he was addressing to avoid certain behaviours if they hoped to avoid hell.You can be saddened by the huge toll alcoholism might have on an individual and his family but still love the person. You hate the alcoholism but not the alcoholic.Likewise you can be saddened by the same sex life style but not hate those living it.

The fact remains that not only is freedom of speech supposed to be an inalienable right in all western countries, it is supposed to be a human right as well. It is funny how pseudo intellectuals can get all worked up over human rights when it is convenient, and then completely ignore them when it is inconvenient.

Under US Law, Israel Folau could have taken his employer to court for violating his civil rights by even demanding that he sign a contract to deny his civil (and human) rights.

We don't have that protection under the Australian Constitution, we depend upon the supposedly good sense among all citizens that freedom of speech is a done deal, like habeous corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right of a fair trial. Unfortunately, decades of peace and prosperity have lulled our populations into ignoring those things which are the most important factors for our democracies survival.

This apathy has been taken advantage of by totalitarian dreamers who see democracy and free speech as real impediments to the sort of society they wish to build. They can always fool the Foxy's of this world into thinking that supporting the overthrow of their own civilisation is what smart, educated social progressives do, as a sort of fashion statement underlining their social identity.

People can argue their points of view - all they wish.
They can rant and rave about "freedom of speech."
They can act immaturely and make assumptions about
others all they want. However the facts remain.

By signing and accepting the $4 million that Israel
Folau did, part of the legal contract was -
not putting anything on social media that may possibly
offend. Folau did get several warnings.

And as Rugby Australia Chief Castle clearly stated -
He's not being punished for his religious beliefs.

"This is not a religious discussion this is a
discussion around the employee - employer relationship
and the values and contractual arrangements within that
agreement. That's the basis on which we've served him a
breach notice."

This is not about what the "Foxy's" of this world
may or may not believe. This has nothing to do with them
or their personal views. They did not have any influence
in this matter.

Foxy says "This is not a religious discussion this is a
discussion around the employee - employer relationship
and the values and contractual arrangements within that
agreement. That's the basis on which we've served him a
breach notice."
My point is does any employer have a right to insist on values which have nothing to do with the values of the game of rugby which I assume centre on a player being willing to follow his coach's directions in training and play and to meet certain media photo and interview commitments. To go beyond that into having players give up their freedom of thought and speech in their private lives is well outside the rights of any employer.
We are both free to express ourselves on this forum Mr Folau had the right to quote from the Bible on his personal twitter account.

This is not what Foxy says. It's what Rugby Australia
says - and Foxy is simply quoting them.

He violated their own codes of behaviour and the
contract which he signed and agreed to abide by.

Apparently Rugby Australia decided that under their
own codes his behaviour was not acceptable.
Rugby Australia is a commercial entity - and as Folau
is popular and influential to younger fans - they
found that his behaviour went against their code of
inclusion.

Anyone having a problem with that should take it up
with Rugby Australia - not Foxy.

Foxy you are a genius!Apologies by the way for wrongly attributing the quote to you. However your own words got right to the heart of what this really is all about.
Apparently Rugby Australia decided that under their
own codes his behaviour was not acceptable.
Rugby Australia is a commercial entity - and as Folau
is popular and influential to younger fans - they
found that his behaviour went against their code of
inclusion.
Rugby Australia have no problems with their young fans being exposed to the messages of thise pushing the same sex lifestyle to the extent that they backed the fight for same sex marriage but draw the line at their young fans becoming aware of a different way of thinking!

TS,

It will be interesting to see whether Folau
is able to achieve anything legally regarding
the actions of Rugby Australia.
We shall have to wait and see what the courts
decide.

No Foxy. The real issue is, whether any commercial entity can demand that it's employees not exercise any one of their civil rights.

Football clubs have "codes of conduct", do they? Let's see. I remember a time when cruise ships banned any Sydney football club from booking club cruises for their players because of the disgusting behaviour of football players. Football players routinely test positive for banned substances, have been involved in drug trafficking, get involved in nightclub brawls, have been thrown out of motels for smearing human faeces on motel walls, one famous one was arrested for indecent exposure, and others have been involved in rapes and sexual assaults, some on underage girls.

In most of these cases the clubs did almost nothing, other than tell the players what naughty boys they were.

But Israel Folau did not break any laws or engage in disgusting behaviour. He did nothing more than tell people he considered to be sinners to stop sinning, and he gets sacked.

LEGO,

The Rugby Australia Chief says that folau ignored
her warnings. He broke the contractual
arrangements he had agreed and signed to - hence
he was served with a breach notice.

Folau is apparently questioning the legalities
involved. The Courts will decide if he has a
legal case.

Like LEGO, we have all seen some appalling behaviour from football players, including several times where I have seen a team arrive at a bar and they seemed to go out of their way to get into a fight. Occasionally people can die from that type of stupidity. I understand why gay people are sick of being picked on, but surely a post on twitter isn't that big of a deal.

'Like LEGO, we have all seen some appalling behaviour from football players, including several times where I have seen a team arrive at a bar and they seemed to go out of their way to get into a fight'

yep group sex, spewing all over the place, bashing women is all forgiveable but don't quote the book of 'fairytales'. This woman from rugby is lost in her own hypocrisy.

Well I tend to agree with Foxy: agreements need to be kept.

One weak point in Foxy's argument is to consider this agreement as an "employment contract", that is because employer/employee relations in Australia are restricted by all sorts of draconic laws. Nevertheless, an agreement has been freely made by both sides, both adult and sane, so it should be kept, even if it cannot be counted as an "employment contract"... ? ?

? ? or perhaps not... actually I am not sure, because here one side is not a sane adult, but an incorporated company! Government ought to have no say on the contents of agreements between sane-adult individuals, but if one chooses to incorporate with them, thus gain certain financial/tax privileges, then surely the government/state can pose some conditions in return!

Unlike individuals, incorporated companies are supposed to exist for one reason: to make money. Whether their products/services are ethical is immaterial, only the bottom line, their profit. Their only restriction is that they must play by the rules of the legal game.

Here we have a case of an unethical company which makes money from wasting people's time, preying on their weaknesses to make them pay for spending chunks of their precious lives passively watching others running around a ball. It can be argued that demanding their players to not speak about certain things can be construed as a purely commercial strategy, lest by speaking about those things, audiences may become upset or disillusioned and stop wasting their time and money with the company, thus harming its business model.

Enough time spent on this issue, time which could be better spent on study, prayer and meditation.