Hey Foxy,
"Perhaps we need to review the laws?"

I dunno, maybe...

On another thread I kind of had to agree with what Alan B said.

"While it's true the freedom of speech is protected as is freedom of worship.
It can't be used as a tool to persecute or preach condemnation on all disbelievers."

"If what you believe, cannot be proven!"
"You don't have the freedom or right to spread your, learned lies! Or medieval bigotry."

- Or if not we'll have a situation like this:
A Jew on one corner saying "Its our right to rule over all gentiles!"
A Muslim on another corner saying "Kill all the infidels!"
A Christian saying "Homosexuals and Fornicators are going to hell!!"
A Luciferian saying "Do as thou wilt"

To add to the current mix of:

Politicians saying "Global Governance is Good, Sovereignty is bad!"
Refugees saying "You're all racist and Intolerant!"
Progressives saying "End Facism and Hate Speech!"
Gays saying "Were normal stop bullying us!"
- and Feminists saying "Stop Male Patriachy!", and "All men are rapists!"

It's all pretty nauseating, what a mess.

Maybe it's like quicksand and if you struggle things will just get worse...
- Maybe it's not actually possible to fix it.

SM,

According to The Chair of Rugby Australia -
Raelene Castle - who explained numerous times in
TV interviews - 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's actions breached the player
code of conduct.

AC,

I totally agree. It is a mess, and really
could have been handled much better by
Rugby Australia. All they had to do is
release a letter to the media saying that
Folau was entitled to his private views but they
did not reflect those of Rugby Australia
in any shape or form.

But perhaps that would have been too simple?
Or alternatively, Folau should have shut up
after his first warning from Rugby Australia.
He had more than three of them, including a
letter in writing and several interviews where
things were made crystal clear to him.

Either way - we'll see what happens next.

Foxy,

"All they had to do is
release a letter to the media saying that
Folau was entitled to his private views but they
did not reflect those of Rugby Australia
in any shape or form."

They could have said that but would their sponsor(s) have let them?

Is Mise,

We'll never know will we. Just as Folau
could have kept his word - couldn't he>
Or alternatively put his message across in
a different way.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

All a bit late now.

As Judge Judy would say -

"Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining!

Foxy,

It looks like RA and its sponsors are about to get creamed:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/folau-s-prospects-bolstered-by-landmark-religious-freedom-ruling-in-britain-20190704-p5240w.html

"Britain's second-highest court handed down a decision on religious freedom yesterday that will send chills down the collective spine of Rugby Australia. In contrast, Israel Folau and his team will be thanking God for divine providence that is akin to manna from heaven.

In Ngole v the University of Sheffield, the English Court of Appeal has decided: “The mere expression of religious views about sin does not necessarily connote discrimination.”

The factual similarities to Folau’s case are remarkable. Felix Ngole was a social work student at the University of Sheffield and a devout Christian. In 2014, he posted Bible verses about homosexuality on a public Facebook page as part of a political debate. Sheffield University accused Ngole of breaching a vague and broadly worded code of conduct.

Through a hearing and two committee appeals, various bureaucratic apparatchiks repeatedly incanted that quoting Bible verses constituted “views of a discriminatory nature” and breached professional guidelines.

As the British appeal court stated: “The university wrongly confused the expression of religious views with the notion of discrimination. The mere expression of views on theological grounds (e.g. that "homosexuality is a sin") does not necessarily connote that the person expressing such views will discriminate on such grounds.”