Libel and slander are already covered by the law.
Provided you do not break those restrictions and use appropriate
language for the place no one has a valid reason to complain.

Anyone who opposes that arrangement should have a read about
what is happening in Britain. People who criticse Islam for instance
can find themselves being questioned by police as to what their
thoughts were on the matter and the wrong answers can have you arrested.
Yes, George Orwell will be pleased.

If you think I am joking, just look further into it all.
The Tory party recently had a political forum into what laws should be
brought in to cover Islamaphobia. Moslem organisations have been
pressing for laws to prevent anyone insulting the Prophet or Islam.
Christianaphobia was not discussed.

However that is only one part, similar rules are required for other
groups such as Scotsmen. Oh sorry Scotspersons !

This is just more of the persecution and martyrdom complex that fundamentalists Christians suffer from. Usually it's every Easter or Christmas when they claim "they" are trying to ban each event but this takes it to a new level.

There is no threat to Freedom of Expression. I can make the same claim without consequence but Folau was not acting in compliance with an agreed contractual arrangement, like a signatory to agree to work against domestic violence but is also an avowed wife-beater.

If I stood on a street corner with a "God Hates Fags" sign like a member of the Westboro Baptist Church some may accuse me of promoting hate and intolerance. Likewise the Mormons only officially stopped claiming that black people were cursed with The Mark of Cain in the seventies.

What if Folau was Jewish or Muslim? I'm absolutely certain we wouldn't be seeing the same public reaction. They believe the same Old Testament laws and we recall how we were appalled at the recent decision of Brunei to stone homosexuals (in accordance with Old Testament Laws) so what's the difference when it comes to religiously mandated genetic intolerance.

Anyway the joke's probably on Folau himself, with his equally forbidden tattoos and cutting the hair on the sides of his head and all the other Levitican nonsense. He's also better start trying to thread a camel through the eye of a needle when it comes to wealth and greed.

Furthermore the concept of "Hell" is a manufactured myth based on Biblical mistranslations and reinterpretations and came mainly from St Augustine who wanted to send everyone who disagereed with him to such a place. The references that remain are known to have been later added to the Bible and do not appear in the original texts.

The whole thing is sickening and pointless and displays the intolerance of those who use cherry-picked religious verse as an excuse for their latent hatreds and seek to divide the community.

No wonder religion is in decline when it's hijacked by such people.

Foxy,

Given that it has already been established that RA's contract with Folau contained no social media clause, the claim that Folau breached his contract is false.

Secondly, his post on Twitter was as a response to a query and was a quote from the bible. To call this "vilifying people" is pure bollocks.

As an atheist, according to the quote I am also destined for hell, and while I don't agree with Folau's views, I abhor the action taken against him for discussing his faith online.

SM, you can not say with certainty that "it has already been established that RA's contract with Folau contained no social media clause, the claim that Folau breached his contract is false." There will be legal argument as to what was contained/implied in Foleu's contract, what verbal undertakings were given etc. One for the real lawyers to sort out, Falou should have his day in court.

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy, but it does not give a person carte blanche to say what they like, to engage in hate speak. Along with the right to speak your mind comes obligations, responsibilities and consequences. The law limits free speech because society recognises that people have to take responsibility for what they say.

What are the limits and obligations, if any, on employees and employers, when it comes to what, or what not, an employee can say. For example should an employee of the Beef Producers Association be at liberty to openly advocate a strictly vegetarian diet for all, that sort of thing.

A case, some may remember this from many years ago. The famous Colonel Sanders after selling out his KFC business to the Pepsi Cola Co, was employed in a promotions roll with KFC. On a visit to Australia to promote the chook business for Pepsi the dear Colonel in an interview was highly critical of the Australian product. The interview certainly made the 6 o'clock news, but not for the reasons the Pepsi Cola Co would have liked. The Colonel's contract was quickly terminated, and the dear Colonel was sent packing back to Kentucky!

Paul,

The main problem with the weasel term "hate speech" is that for the offenderatti on the far left is their interpretation of the term is anything they disagree with. Claiming that an excerpt from the bible is "hate speech" is a bridge too far for reasonable people.

James Cook University got a hiding in court because they based the firing not on the employment contract, but relied on an ambiguous code of conduct.

Rugby Australia's firing of Folau is also not based on the contract, but on an infrigement based on an ambitous interpretation of the code of conduct. And to top it off it is not just a firing, but a ban from playing rugby of any code in Aus for life.

If I was to lay a bet, I would bet that RA is going to lose and lose big.

Foxy,

"A homosexual and a pedophile are two different
things."

Quite right, but when a person preys on children of the same sex as them then they are homosexual paedophiles.

When they prey on children of the opposite sex then they are heterosexual paedophiles.

Comprhe?