Foxy, I am reading your reference.
I am appalled that someone would suggest that if an employee would
write something that offended any particular customer could be sacked !
An employee could be a prominent member of any organisation unconnected
to the employers industry but one of thousands customers complains and
he is told not to speak on that subject again.
He does speak again, so he loses his job ?

What possible right for that could that employer have ?
The example your reference gave of Ali is arguable because the Koran
specifies;
“If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy he will be
stoned to death.”
He is advocating harm, indeed death.
You call that a comparison ?
This raises another question, the Koran should be a banned publication
as it advocates death for homosexuals, by throwing off cliffs.
Don't hear screaming by the twitterati on that !

The hypocrisy in this business is appalling !

I KNOW
Truly know, but it remains a valid question, are my rights to claim no God ever existed the same a this mans?
And if I am right is this about nothing?
Remember , please do not change the facts to suit your bias, he was warned once
Told not to do it again
Then did it, he broke a contract
Bazz you use other truths to prop him up
Again, why did he not talk about pedophilia in the faith?
Suffer the little children who come onto me?

To Belly. You asked:

<<are my rights to claim no God ever existed the same a this mans?>>

My guess is that you have more rights then Isreal Folau, just on the basis that you can talk openly about your disbelief in God and have nothing to fear about losing your job or any retirement income. You can do this in public as well as in your privite life without worry from an employer punishing you for what you say off the clock.

With that in mind everyone here posting about this probabley has more expressed rights then Folau because they aren't fighting for their right to free speech in a court. In essence if your rights aren't abused then you have more rights then those who's rights have been abused. The issue for me is that the contract of restricting Folau's speach should not have been made and should be considered a breach of his rights by them just making the contract. No employer should have this much say about someone when they are off the clock unless the person actually harmed someone, or unless it had something to do with the business they are fired from.

Folau's Twitter post harmed no one (though made a lot of people angry), has nothing to do with rugby, nor was it made while in rugby uniform or on the field. Yet he is fired and fighting for his rights in court. Anyone not in court fighting for their rights likely has no abuse on their rights being made and have more rights expressed then Folau.

I find this whole thing amusing.
People are just so childish and lacking in so many ways.
Fools one and all.
Now I can see how easy it was to lead people around by the nose in the good ole' days, in fact, still today.
How easy was it to convince them that if they did not do as they were told that God would punish them or the sky would fall down, or God would send a plague of locusts, and so on and so forth.
People, this is a storm in a tea cup'.
The main reason I find you all lacking is that whether Muslim or Christian, who cares.
What you all suddenly found God?
You've all suddenly realised there are things called religion, and you're supposed to be beholding to it.
You all carry on as if you are compelled to obey the word of God, all of a sudden, when we really know that most people scoff at the mention of religion and anything to do with it.
So why are we suddenly concerned with 'the word of God', and someone preaching it?
People have to give opinions, it makes them feel important.
You people comment as if this was a relevant issue and therefore important.
I comment in jest and ridicule, which is what this topic is really about.
The man gives an opinion which he is legally allowed to give by law, and by rights.
Never mind that he was told by his employer not to, that was illegal and overridden by the law, section 772.
You know the irony of all this?
How do any of you brainiacs know that the poofters will NOT burn in hell?
Do you know something those of us with a sense of humour and objective outlook on life, don't know?

Steele Redux, you can't resist a snide shot at Christians, but the basis of your criticism of the Gospel of John for quoting Jesus calling "the Jews" children of Satan, is wrong. It's pretty clear he is referring to those who were plotting to kill him at the time, not the whole of the Jewish nation. There are also translation issues, which if you wanted to be fair-minded, you could read. Here's a link to a site that tackles some of them https://blog.israelbiblicalstudies.com/jewish-studies/who-are-the-jews-in-the-gospel-of-john/.

Interesting that you would classify as "hate speech" words spoken in an attempt to dissuade one group from killing a person. Jesus is saying that if they kill him, then they are not children of Abraham, but children of Satan. That is they are not righteous, but evil. I reckon that is fair comment.

Belly,

"Again, why did he not talk about pedophilia in the faith?
Suffer the little children who come onto me?"

Probably for the same reason that you appear loath to talk about the appalling record of atheists in relation to paedophilia.