Alan B,

<<Quoting various alleged biblical text as if it were truth or the writer was a divinely inspired apostle when he or she could be anybody or even one of the pagan sun worshipping Conttitine's (sic) personal appointees?
Proves naught but the brainwashed beliefs of those who quote this or that, alleged biblical text, as if it had a foundation in truth as opposed to messages mean to control a body of believers.>>

When I cite biblical texts, I quote documents that are trustworthy and have been proven so by competent historians.

In those reliable documents, God declares, 'The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures for ever' (Psalm 119:160). You don't like the fact that God's word is truth forever. Truth is not only the opposite of falsehood but what which conforms with reality.

Jesus confirmed he is 'the truth' (John 14:6), the one who declared reality, and the way to Father God. Truth is not determined by Alan B and his denigration of Christianity.

<<Proves naught but the brainwashed beliefs of those who quote this or that, alleged biblical text, as if it had a foundation in truth as opposed to messages mean to control a body of believers.>>

Those are your dogmatic presuppositions enforced on those who read this thread. Do you hate those who demonstrate the Bible is reliable literature and become born again Christians?

If Australia promoted God's absolutes and our laws demonstrated support for them, this nation would not be in the mess it's in.

Foxy,

Folau did not break his contractual agreement.

This is going to largely be in his favour.

SM,

Israel Folau broke the professional code of conduct
that was in the contract he signed and one that he
agreed to abide by. The law is clear on this matter.

OzSpen,

My question regarding Israel Folau and brain damage
was a legitimate concern. It was not an insult or a
slur but was based on the fact that Rugby has one
of the highest incident of concussion of all contact
sports.

And every time you're concussed your brain is damaged.
It is what it is and it's irreversible. And we need to
know that, and to hear it. We need to have this
conversation.

As Ian Roberts tells us:

"I'd played nearly 250 games of rugby league and been
concussed over a dozen times. I wasn't getting out
without a scratch, but " irreversible long-term
brain damage? It hit me right in the guts!"

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/10/ian-roberts-concussion-is-irreversible-brain-damage-we-need-to-have-this-conversation

There was a documentary on television recently studying
the medical effects caused by two sports - rugby league as
played in Australia, New Zealand, and the UK and grid iron
as played in the US showing head scans of players with
irreversible damage and their effects on players behaviour.

Based on this doco it's legitimate to inquire if any
damage has been caused to Israel Folau. Who signed
and agreed to a code of behaviour in his employment
contract and chose to break it even after at least three
warnings from his employer as well as a letter, making
things quite clear to him what would happen if he persisted
in his behaviour. He chose to ignore everything despite
being told of the consequences.

That is not rational behaviour.

Foxy, if your employer told you that you could not publically express any political and social opinion when you are in your own time, I'll bet you would be outraged. Yet you go into bat for Football Australia when it did the same thing to Israel Folau. All Folau did was say that "adulterers, fornicators, liars, adulterers, homosexuals, atheists and thieves" would go to hell. That means he pointed the bone at every single person in Australia. I'll bet even pious Runner has done a bit of fornicating in his youth. Nobody is offended, except Football Australia, QANTAS, and the hyper sensitive, always outraged homosexuals.

The only reason why there is a problem at all is because Folau is a Christian, and he quoted Christian biblical morality. If he had quoted the bloody Koran every psuedo social progressive "liberal" would had been pretending that he said nothing wrong at all.

You keep claiming that the absolute right of a free people in a free democratic country to state their opinions upon any social or political matter, is the same as restrictions on incitement to violence, libel, contempt of court, breaking the Official Secrets Act, and the production and dissemination of child pornography. It isn't.

Pseudo social progressive liberals such as your good self have a problem. You are supposed to support free political speech in order to claim that you are a progressive. But you support a left wing ideology which insists that certain minorities must be beyond criticism, with homosexuals the top of the list. So you have invented the term "hate speech" to try to censor what your political opponents say, and insist that by censoring their political and social opinions, you are somehow still protecting free speech. That is akin to the Flat Earth Societies (yes, it exists) claim that satellite photos of a spherical earth have been doctored by NASA.

If you won't support free speech, do you approve of burning your political opponents books too? Just label them "hate books" and burn away. Foxy and the Bonfire of the Vanities.

Foxy,

<<Based on this doco it's legitimate to inquire if any damage has been caused to Israel Folau. Who signed
and agreed to a code of behaviour in his employment contract and chose to break it even after at least three
warnings from his employer.... That is not rational behaviour.>>

It is a BIG leap, based on your assumptions, to Izzy having 'brain damage as a result of rugby'. I'm not doubting that has happened to some players.

Have you seen Folau's contract so that you can unequivocally state that he <<signed and agreed to a code of behaviour in his employment contract and chose to break it even after at least three warnings from his employer.>>?

Do you KNOW that his contract states, 'Thou shalt not quote or paraphrase any portion of the Bible that offends "Drunks, Homosexuals, Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists, Idolators unless they repent"?

Do you know for sure it's in Folau's contract?

Folau is accountable to God who wants him to share the Gospel, which is at the core of his faith. He has done that in a small way as a rugby player. He was too abrupt in his approach for me, but he's being obedient to his call as an evangelical Christian. It may cost him his job.

That's in the hands of the court now.

OzSpen,

Rugby Australia terminated Folau's employment
contract after a Tribunal determined his actions
breached the organisation's code of conduct.

The offending behaviour was an Instagram post by
Folau warning homosexuals (among others): "Hell
Awaits You. Repent! Only Jesus Saves!"

Folau has now brought a claim to the Fair Works
Commission alleging the termination was because of his
religion and therefore was unlawful. That he was being
discriminated against.

Rugby Australia maintains that Folau was dismissed not
because of his religious beliefs, but because he breached
the player code of conduct.

Raelene Caste, The Chair of Rugby Australia has explained
numerous times in television interviews that the code is
typical of that of many businesses.

It requires players to treat everyone equally and with
dignity, regardless of their sexual orientation; not to
use social media to breach expected standards of
behaviour; and not to make public comments or otherwise
clearly act contrary to the best interests of the game.

Clearly, Folau did not heed the warnings as Ms Castle
stated including the letter he received and his
actions breached the player code of conduct.

Case Law tells us that Section 351 of the Fair Works
Act requires the employee to prove an employer was
motivated to discriminate against him or her because of
religion.

If an employer can point to an employee's breach of
their employment obligations as the reason for their
dismissal - instead of a discriminatory motive -\then the employee's claim fails.

It shall be interesting what the court decides.

See you on another discussion.
This one for me has now run its course.

LEGO,

This case is not about freedom of speech or freedom
of religion. It's about keeping one's contractual
obligations.