Of coursehe's allowed to have his religion. He's free to believe what he likes, to worship the god of his choice and observe the rituals of his religion, to study whichever holy book he chooses, to pray, and to commune with like minded people. None of that was forbidden by the league, and his punishment didn't reflect that the league objected to any of those things.
His employer forbade expression of what he believed, even on his own time and dime, demonstrating ownership of an employee. As in the link I provided, they behaved like a cult, claimed time that wasn't theirs and made him afraid of his bosses -- all signs that he was not treated just as an employee but as a slave. In general sports leagues are frequently seen to use enslavement techniques like these. They want full dedication, and they act like a military cult.
The remainder of society is entitled to decide collectively what opinions are inappropriate, what constitutes hate speech, and how to deal with it legally according to the sum of each member's values and what they consider unacceptable behavior.
This is an employer, not the rest of society.
The league is exercising its lawful right to enforce the contract that spelled out what was expected from him in return for his compensation. He broke the contract and the league exercised its right to withdraw from its terms. The league is entitled to exert whatever pressure it can in its own interests as long as they don't break the law in so doing.
I appreciate the league opposing the expression of hateful, bigoted opinions.
Its unethical to purchase a human even when there is a contract. Indentured servitude is supposedly outlawed for that reason, but you argue for an exception in sports leagues and because the pay is high.
Disagree. There is nothing unethical about the terms of the athlete's employment. He wasn't forced to sign them, nor was forced to break them.
Contracts containing illegal provisions are at least partially void.
Disagree again. They simply don't want him announcing the hateful things that his religion teaches him as long as he works for the league. They think it reflects badly on the sport, and are eager to show the world that their sport rejects his values.
Its not their call to decide whether his religion is hateful, particularly not on his own time. Clearly the sport doesn't reject his values though his employers do. Rugby is not a religion is it? Since when? Cult.
Yes. And he gets to agree to it or walk away and seek employment elsewhere. And if he takes the job, agrees to its terms, fishes anyway, and they catch him, they can fire him.
What part of that seems unfair?
Its unethical to own another person even if you pay them handsomely. Therefore the terms of his employment are unethical.
Although I belong to a faith that has conservative values in regards both marriage and sex, I believe people who identify as gay or couples who are unmarried should be treated with the same kindness and respect as everyone else. I personally found Israel Folau’s comments deeply offensive. Furthermore it could easily become adherents of religions other than his type of Christianity who are going to hell. We used to tolerate racism and misogyny under the banner of free speech. I really appreciate those who challenge the promotion of hatred and bigotry under the guise of free speech.
I found his comments to be unrelated to me and therefore not personally offensive but still out there on his flying saucer. We aren't talking about someone running a nuclear missile silo but just a ball player. He's not killing anybody by being an idiot. If he were talking about me I'd be pretty upset about it, but I wouldn't expect the sports league to go after him. It would be a civil matter between him and myself.
Australia is my neighbouring country. I know Australian rugby has worked hard to change its image. Their reputation has often been tarnished at times by the excesses of macho culture including sexual assaults and people who are different getting beaten up. I for one applaud Australian Rugby’s courageous decision and have no sympathy for Israel Folau.
On the positive side I'm glad that Christians can be legally oppressed for holding views that are contrary to popular acceptance and which could hurt someone's feelings.
Please.