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.