What the UK appeal case shows clearly is that someone quoting the bible on social media is neither hate speech or vilification and that doing so is not grounds for taking punitive action.

Christopher Akehurst writing in Quadrant penned this;

"The treatment of Folau says a lot about the power the gay, lesbian and trans lobby has acquired. Folau was quoting St Paul letter to the Galatians. The passage (read out in Roman Catholic churches on the 28th “ordinary” Wednesday every two years if anyone wants to turn up and complain) declares that not only gays but also those who practise, among other things, adultery, envy, witchcraft, murder and drunkenness will not be saved. Yet only the LGBT etc. lot decided to kick up a public storm. Perhaps adulterers, the envious, witches, murderers and drunks should form a lobby too, and get St Paul de-platformed for blackening their name."

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/07/homophobia-and-gross-hypocrisy/

The trouble is Galatians says nothing about homosexuals. The writer assumes it does because Falou quoted Galatians when he posted his meme.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-11/israel-folau-slammed-over-latest-anti-gay-comments/10991574

In my opinion having Falou go out of his way to mention homosexuality when his supporting verse did not is a real issue to the defense he is trying to put.

Quadrant not only producing a poorly researched piece but doubling down within it is usual fare unfortunately.

SR,

What the judgements in the US Supreme court and the UK appeals court have in common are:
1 That the defendant has demonstrated his faith in the way he has lived,
2 That what he has said or done is in line with his beliefs
3 That in other aspects the defendant has not actively discriminated.

As Folau meets all of the above criteria, my money is on Rugby Australia losing badly.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote;

"What the UK appeal case shows clearly is that someone quoting the bible on social media is neither hate speech or vilification and that doing so is not grounds for taking punitive action."

No they haven't shown that at all because it hasn't been properly assessed yet.

The day that a Falou Mk11 steps up and starts posting about Jews being the spawn of the Devil and that Christ came to save us from them will be the day when this is fully tested.

Then the argument "quoting the bible on social media is neither hate speech or vilification" will either stand or common sense and decency will prevail.

Steely, what do you mean, 'it hasn't been properly assessed yet'.

SR,

Clearly you weren't reading the judgement.

“The mere expression of religious views about sin does not necessarily connote discrimination.”

“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.”

In the case Ngole v the University of Sheffield Ngole went further than Folau, and if Raelene Castle had even a smidgeon of sense she would rapidly move to settle the case out of court and pay IF his $4m + compensation with an apology before they are forced to do so at a much higher cost.