Foxy,

You keep quoting Raelene Castle as an unbiased expert. She's clearly not. To admit even once that religion had anything to do with IF's dismissal would be to hand Folau an instant victory, at which point she might as well resign.

Labour law is biased towards an employee, and to fire someone requires the employer not only to have a strong case for dismissal, but to have followed the correct procedures. Many employee has been reappointed for the smallest slip up.

That there is a clear and unambiguous tie to Folau's religion in the quote that he posted on Instagram being a quote from the new testament rather than any direct statement of his opinion changes the onus of proof onto RA. Given that the purely contractual basis for the dismissal is also on shaky ground given they are relying on the code of conduct rather than the contract. Add to this a senior member of RA admitting that the support of sponsors was based on the outcome and you have the perfect storm for RA.

If Folau drags the sponsors into court for months of bad publicity, you might well find the pressure on RA to settle becoming irresistible.

The bottom line is don't upset sponsors particularly those that want to push the homosexual agenda.

SM,

We're in the midst of this pandemonium because
Folau changed his mind. For a $4 million contract
he initially agreed to go easy on denouncing,
among other vices, the evils of homosexuality.
He traded his freedom of speech for money.

So, why say yes in the first place and sign a contract
if that's such a profound violation of his rights and
his faith? And why does he expect more millions from
Rugby Australia because he's copped the ordinary
consequences now of going back on his word?

It appears that Folau's target is everything in this
scenario.
If Folau was insisting on vilifying say - Jews, or the
rich, or the disabled, would anyone object to Rugby
Australia insisting he shut up about it?

I cant see any good outcome coming out of this honestly Foxy.

If Israel Folau CAN say what he said, other religious believers would have full permission to openly preach what their religious texts say.

If Israel Folau CAN'T say what he said, then it gives too much power to big business to dictate and intrude upon the lives of the people they employ.

It's a no win situation.

AC,

Businesses have always had the power over what was
considered -" acceptable
conduct" of their employees. This is nothing new.
And religious organisations have also always
been allowed to discriminate. Perhaps we need to
review the laws?

Foxy,

Since Folau's contract made no mention of social media, your statement that "For a $4 million contract he initially agreed to go easy on denouncing, among other vices, the evils of homosexuality. He traded his freedom of speech for money" is pure bollocks.