Is it right that Israel Folau should get the sack for his 'Hell awaits gay people' comments?

[Rival]

But it did. As an employee of that company what he says and does personally reflects on the company that he works for. Do you understand that in the U.S. at least most public personal have a morality clause in their contract. That includes most pro-sports players. Companies have those clauses in their contracts because the public acts of their employees affects their image. Does as a person bad mouthing a company that he works for affects their image what he did affected his companies image. What he did could be seen as violating a morality clause. Spreading hate speech is immoral.

Yes, and I disagree with this approach. It encroaches on a person's freedom, effectively making them company property.

 

[Augustus]

No as it is stating a fact that he still opt-ed out. I gave no indication over his motive.

He opt-ed out of his own contract for a better deal.

Sorry son, he "opted out" because the only other option was remaining contracted to a team for several months despite not being paid or having any work to do yet being prohibited from trying to find a new employer.

To 'correct' someone who said he got fired by say he opted out to "for a better deal" rather than because he was told he was getting fired, was no longer getting paid, and thus had no reason to stay, is deliberately misleading.

What I said was the comment was public relations not propaganda

Everyone knew he was getting cut. His boss said he told him he was getting cut. That is explaining the facts of the situation.

If he spent the entire season saving puppies from burning buildings he would still have got cut due to his contract.

Try again son. Less fiction in your head

See above son. Your words son.

gain less listening to the fiction in your head and more reading what I actually posted.

And again son.

I know it's not possible to get any sense from you on this issue though son.

 

[SomeRandom]

So the absurd standard. Gotcha. You know what a punishment/reward dynamic is right?

I do believe most religious folk refer to the punishment/reward dynamic as "heaven" and "Hell." Perhaps you've heard of them?

So why are they not up in arms about thieves, atheists, adulterers, etc? Why is it the one group that seems require validation being protected?

Probably because, as you yourself stated, atheism is not a religion, so doesn't fall under religious protection. Adultery is not a sexual orientation, so doesn't fall under already long established anti discrimination laws protecting sexual orientation. Thieves are hurting people and I'm pretty sure theft is illegal.
I didn't come up with this specific system, take it up with the law makers.

Projection due to the hiding remark. You fail to consider that the religion is the source of the view itself.

I assume if Israel were to be a Muslim, you would of course still defend this statement. Right?
Now before you jump on me, I too see a double standard on both sides regarding Christianity and Islam in such scenarios. I'm just saying, I considered the source. Sure it's part of his religion, fine. According to Rugby Australia, such a sentiment violates their terms of contract. So the result is the same, to me. He violated the terms, so he should suffer the consequences.

I am rather jaded though, to be fair. Whenever a Christian fires someone for violating a morality clause, everyone seems to run into battle to defend such a decision. (As do I.) As soon as a Christian is held to the same standard, ie violating a morality clause of some kind, suddenly freedom of religion is being attacked.

That is why I am rather jaded by the defense given to him. Not by you, specifically. Just that defense in general. So hopefully you now know the source of my view.

Link the contract.

I suspect you know I can't, due to privacy laws.
But, everyone in the public knows and I quote
"Rugby AU’s policy on inclusion is simple: Rugby has and must continue to be a sport where players, officials, volunteers, supporters and administrators have the right and freedom to participate regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion and without fear of exclusion. There is no place for homophobia or any form of discrimination in our game and our actions and words both on and off the field must reflect this."

Bold mine.
file:///C:/Users/fudgi/Downloads/Rugby%20AU%20Inclusion%20Policy%20(1).pdf

Now I don't think it should take a PhD understanding of philosophy to link a statement like "gays will burn in hell" to a statement which potentially goes against such a policy, official policy to be clear. I mean, come on. And he has been warned in the past to avoid such behavior. This is not a one off offence. Then you could argue for leniency. I'm not sure what his specific contract entails, but pretty much every employee under the sun has some kind of restrictions on social media. It's probably a lot more strict with sports players and other high profile jobs, like politicians or celebrities or whatever.

Actually up here people are not fired for having a religious view. Shocking isn't it.

I said expressing a view that could be religious being the cause for being fired. Just having a viewpoint doesn't really do anything. It's literally just a viewpoint. Putting it out there might cause blowback, regardless of religious affiliation or even lack thereof. Depending on what you say. If I were a devout Christian and used the Bible to claim that black people were proof of the mark of Cain and that owning them is biblical, pretty sure I'd experience some consequences as a result. Might not have done a couple generations ago. But eh, times change.

Actually in some nations by law it is.

Does it in Australian law? (That's not sarcasm, I legitimately don't know.)

Mandating what religious views people can express in public outside employment environments dictated by the employer and protected by the state is a major problem. Consider the power of this in the wrong hands.

Well sure. But Israel could have rejected it and I don't know, found another sport with less stringent internet rules. These consequences takes two to tango, if you get me?

Sure he did it himself. I question the leagues rational and the
policing of people outside of work for thought-crimes.

That's a fair enough objection. But it doesn't change the fact that Israel only has Israel to blame for whatever consequences he faces. It might not even be firing. Though maybe the League will use this in a show of solidarity with NZ, a sort of "let's stamp out hate" kind of thing. I dunno.

I do not accept that view point myself. He is not being targeted due to being Christian. I see no evidence of actual anti-Christian views. At best it would be a lack of protection.

Fair enough.

 

[SomeRandom]

No but he might want to have a place for himself on social media like most other people?

Sure. But he as well as every single player in every code of football we have, has agreed with his employers that his public actions and words reflect on them by default. He is therefore under a mutual agreement with said employers that he can face disciplinary action for statements he makes public. Again, no one forced him to agree to that. He chose that as a consequence to follow his chosen career.
That's just the reality of the situation.

 

[Shad]

Sorry son, he "opted out" because the only other option was remaining contracted to a team for several months despite not being paid or having any work to do yet being prohibited from trying to find a new employer.

I corrected it. It was public knowledge he wanted to be a starter and SF was not making him one.

To 'correct' someone who said he got fired by say he opted out to "for a better deal" rather than because he was told he was getting fired, was no longer getting paid, and thus had no reason to stay, is deliberately misleading.

He wasn't fired. He wanted to be a starter and didn't get it. He told he was being released. A release is not being fired. The comparison was made that Kap was fired for his kneeling protest as per Folau being fired for his twitter. Kap was not fired for kneeling. He going to be release as he isn't very good. He preempted it as he disagreed regarding his skill set. He was more than confident he was due a contract so made the move when there was a greater possibility of making a team. All of which failed.Hence why he sued the league.

Misleading. Hilarious. Do you know the difference between being fired and released? Obviously you do not. When a player is released from their contract they are still paid by the team via guaranteed money clauses. It is not a termination of all obligations by all parties but a release of the player from having any obligation to a team. Opting out terminated the whole contract as it is a specific clause granted to the player to end their contract. Kaep had over 4 million in dead money on his contract

Being fired is for contract violations such as drugs and misconduct.

Everyone knew he was getting cut. His boss said he told him he was getting cut. That is explaining the facts of the situation.

He still opt-ed out.

If he spent the entire season saving puppies from burning buildings he would still have got cut due to his contract.

Yah as he declined in play.

See above son. Your words son.

What fiction would that be? He wanted to be a starter, fact. He sued the league when he didn't get a contract, fact. Ergo he thought either by merit or entitlement he deserved a contract, logic behind the fact. Try again son. Less fiction and fake quotes.

Again my point about PR was the whole is distorting his release as if he was being fired for misconduct or changing the "You can't fire me! I quit" to reduce the backlash of a controversial player

And again son.

Again you are not pointing out anything that is a fiction while I pointed out you put words in my mouth with your fake quote. Try again son.

I know it's not possible to get any sense from you on this issue though son.

You have yet to point out a single fiction. I get it. You have a need to defend Kap as you are a fanboy. After all it was the only point you jumped on in this thread. Gotta defend your idol.

 

[Shad]

I do believe most religious folk refer to the punishment/reward dynamic as "heaven" and "Hell." Perhaps you've heard of them?

Yes. So holding this dynamic in general is offensive to those that make a list B instead of list A?

Probably because, as you yourself stated, atheism is not a religion, so doesn't fall under religious protection. Adultery is not a sexual orientation, so doesn't fall under already long established anti discrimination laws protecting sexual orientation.

Anti-discrimination laws typical require a victim not some nebulous group taking offense over a tweet.

Thieves are hurting people and I'm pretty sure theft is illegal.

But thieves can reform. Why is there no outrage for the reformed former convicts?

I didn't come up with this specific system, take it up with the law makers.

Do you support or oppose the system? Better to start off with this question to separate with defending a view you hold versus communicating the view of the league or nation-state. Likewise to keep things clear I am against the principle regarding regulating speech not defending what he said himself. Fact is I think his view is that of a child taking fiction seriously.

I assume if Israel were to be a Muslim, you would of course still defend this statement. Right?

Yup. I have had plenty of people tell me I am going to hell and I do not try to get them fired for it. I care when someone trying to impose their views on everyone else or is acting out their fantasies.

Honestly part of my reaction is due to my views of many of these religions. To keep it simple. People believing in a religion from such a primitive era that couldn't figure out things we take for granted in the present telling me I am going to hell is laughable. It is like a flat-Earther telling me I am going to fall off if I mix fabrics.

Now before you jump on me, I too see a double standard on both sides regarding Christianity and Islam in such scenarios. I'm just saying, I considered the source. Sure it's part of his religion, fine.

Yah there is a double-standard.

According to Rugby Australia, such a sentiment violates their terms of contract. So the result is the same, to me. He violated the terms, so he should suffer the consequences.

I think the policy is going to the absurd especially in the fact that there are religious views that do have such a hell concept. Seems like coddling.

I am rather jaded though, to be fair. Whenever a Christian fires someone for violating a morality clause, everyone seems to run into battle to defend such a decision. (As do I.) As soon as a Christian is held to the same standard, ie violating a morality clause of some kind, suddenly freedom of religion is being attacked.

I see this whole situation itself as someone violated a morality clause. The only difference is it is from the PC cult not some normal religion.

That is why I am rather jaded by the defense given to him. Not by you, specifically. Just that defense in general. So hopefully you now know the source of my view.

Understandable. My overall point is how people have weaponized social media to get anyone they disagree with fired. Often those complaining are not even involved.

I suspect you know I can't, due to privacy laws.
But, everyone in the public knows and I quote
"Rugby AU’s policy on inclusion is simple: Rugby has and must continue to be a sport where players, officials, volunteers, supporters and administrators have the right and freedom to participate regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion and without fear of exclusion. There is no place for homophobia or any form of discrimination in our game and our actions and words both on and off the field must reflect this."

I question their defination of homophobia. The term has become a buzzword and umbrella term for anything. It has become like Islamophobia (or vice-verse).

Bold mine.
file:///C:/Users/fudgi/Downloads/Rugby%20AU%20Inclusion%20Policy%20(1).pdf

The link does not work due to my browser security. I will try to find it online.

Now I don't think it should take a PhD understanding of philosophy to link a statement like "gays will burn in hell" to a statement which potentially goes against such a policy, official policy to be clear. I mean, come on.

Again this goes back to my disagreement with their definition.

And he has been warned in the past to avoid such behavior. This is not a one off offence. Then you could argue for leniency. I'm not sure what his specific contract entails, but pretty much every employee under the sun has some kind of restrictions on social media. It's probably a lot more strict with sports players and other high profile jobs, like politicians or celebrities or whatever.

I dislike such clauses as it regulated conduct outside of work as if it were the employer's problem when it isn't. Also it enable people to create criteria for "wrong-think" merely to get people fired for having an unpopular view.

I said expressing a view that could be religious being the cause for being fired. Just having a viewpoint doesn't really do anything. It's literally just a viewpoint. Putting it out there might cause blowback, regardless of religious affiliation or even lack thereof. Depending on what you say. If I were a devout Christian and used the Bible to claim that black people were proof of the mark of Cain and that owning them is biblical, pretty sure I'd experience some consequences as a result. Might not have done a couple generations ago. But eh, times change.

Sure some nation have controlled speech. This is something I am against as government is the last entity I would invest power in regarding what people can say. Even under good intentions.

Does it in Australian law? (That's not sarcasm, I legitimately don't know.)

This is a sticking point. Under the laws I read there are clauses for religious accommodation for practices thus beliefs and protection from religious discrimination. There are also laws about what people can say about a group nor merely person. (Some nation have no laws about a group there must be a victim) These points are in conflict. Fact is I need to read a bit more to see what the tipping point is.

Well sure. But Israel could have rejected it and I don't know, found another sport with less stringent internet rules. These consequences takes two to tango, if you get me?

Do consider CBA tend to be very restrict iveregarding contracts and there are player unions which are a monopoly. The union decided X is no longer acceptable even if players have been doing it for decades. Happened in hockey when some locker room talk and insults got to the public. Players can bash each others faces in but call a player on the other team a *** created a **** storm.

That's a fair enough objection. But it doesn't change the fact that Israel only has Israel to blame for whatever consequences he faces. It might not even be firing. Though maybe the League will use this in a show of solidarity with NZ, a sort of "let's stamp out hate" kind of thing. I dunno.

Sure. I am arguing against the principle behind the termination and policy. He signed it, he may not have read it but he signed it. He put his foot in it.

I am not a fan of organization taking on over the top social activism. Helping the poor, sure. Getting kids into sports via funding (costs of hockey vs basket ball). Utopian fantasies are completely different. Beside if people were so concerned about keeping negative ideas out of a society they were be holding views of immigration far more in line with my views rather than not.

 

[lukethethird]

Is it right that Israel Folau should get the sack for his 'Hell awaits gay people' comments?
I'm guessing he is gay and doesn't want anyone to know.

 

[Cooky]

More like the image police, as professional players represent their brand.

I have to disagree. I think people should say what they think. I've never agreed with emoyers meddling in people's personal lives.

 

[Cooky]

Is it right that Israel Folau should get the sack for his 'Hell awaits gay people' comments?
I'm guessing he is gay and doesn't want anyone to know.

How gay though... That's the real question. I would say, not very.

 

[Father Heathen]

I wonder if those defending him still would've done so had he said something antisemitic instead of something homophobic.

 

[Shad]

I wonder if those defending him still would've done so had he said something antisemitic instead of something homophobic.

There is a difference between defending a right to say objectionable things and defending the objectionable statement itself.

 

[Father Heathen]

There is a difference between defending a right to say objectionable things and defending the objectionable statement itself.

Of course, but I still wager that the response would've been different.

 

[Shad]

Of course, but I still wager that the response would've been different.

For some sure.

 

[Augustus]

I corrected it. It was public knowledge he wanted to be a starter and SF was not making him one.

Again spinning it to sound like he chose to be unemployed because he was too demanding.

SF was making him unemployed so there was literally no reason not to "opt out".

He wasn't fired. He wanted to be a starter and didn't get it. He told he was being released. A release is not being fired. The comparison was made that Kap was fired for his kneeling protest as per Folau being fired for his twitter. Kap was not fired for kneeling. He going to be release as he isn't very good. He preempted it as he disagreed regarding his skill set. He was more than confident he was due a contract so made the move when there was a greater possibility of making a team. All of which failed.Hence why he sued the league.

Misleading. Hilarious. Do you know the difference between being fired and released? Obviously you do not. When a player is released from their contract they are still paid by the team via guaranteed money clauses. It is not a termination of all obligations by all parties but a release of the player from having any obligation to a team. Opting out terminated the whole contract as it is a specific clause granted to the player to end their contract. Kaep had over 4 million in dead money on his contract

Being fired is for contract violations such as drugs and misconduct.

Having your employment contract terminated because your employer doesn't believe you are performing at the level they expected is getting fired in any other job in the world. We just call it something different for athletes.

When a coach or GM is released from their contract for performance reasons we say they were fired even though this is not for a contract violation.

"The Cleveland Browns have fired both head coach Hue Jackson and offensive coordinator Todd Haley, the team announced Monday."

They still get whatever guarantees were in their contact.

I'm happy enough to use cut though as it makes zero difference to the point.

You have yet to point out a single fiction.

"He opt-ed out of his own contract for a better deal."

"No as it is stating a fact that he still opt-ed out. I gave no indication over his motive."

There's 2 for a start.

To 'correct' someone who said he got fired by say he opted out "for a better deal" rather than because he was told he was getting cut due to his contract being too large, was no longer getting paid, and thus had no reason to stay as it served no purpose other than legally prohibiting him form seeking new employment, is deliberately misleading.

Yah as he declined in play.

Yes, regardless of any kneeling he would have been cut because his contract was no longer deemed value for money. He renegotiated his contract to basically allow himself to play for the rest of the season as if he hadn't voided injury guarantees they wouldn't have risked playing him.

I get it. You have a need to defend Kap as you are a fanboy. After all it was the only point you jumped on in this thread. Gotta defend your idol.

I have a need to defend what actually happened rather than letting people spout politically motivated ignorance.

Not sure how pointing out he was getting cut due to having a contract that was too large is 'defending' him, but whatever floats your boat.

If noting he didn't opt out "for a better deal", but because he had been told he was getting cut (so would never do another minute's work or be paid another cent) is being a fanboy then your ideological bias is stronger than I thought.

No doubt you'll reply with some spin and bad-faith quibbling, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Ultimately, Mr Business will do that which is best for his business.
This means accommodating or not accommodating employees or customers.
Others will differ, & they should run their businesses accordingly.

Of course he/they will. I have absolutely no doubt.

Just interesting to me that the ideology of business is almost always going to have to necessarily be no deeper than "money."

With my experiences watching coworkers be let go at companies, while they hire more VPs and executives and consult consulting firms, seeming to only hope that one of those things will help them get more money, telling stories about how the company is "doing better" and that all the advice and executive hires are paying off, and then having to do another surprise round of firings - with all of that, I have come to the conclusion that the politics of business is the politics of abject cowards and ideological dwarfs. Not that the conglomeration of scared little executive employees really has a choice, I admit. But it is something I have always known I want no part of. Got close once... but I quit and moved on. I decided I won't let someone tell me what I have to do to another person in order to make my money. And that's that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course he/they will. I have absolutely no doubt.

Just interesting to me that the ideology of business is almost always going to have to necessarily be no deeper than "money."

I disagree completely. Businesses are often simultaneously expressions of philosophy.
Mine is. I've done some things which caused financial loss because of my social views
& agenda. But ultimately, the business needs to survive. So there are limits at times.

Btw, I won't suffer a financial loss for someone else's views, particularly if they're heinous.
Some people's opinions do not deserve my subsidy.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I disagree completely. Businesses are often simultaneously expressions of philosophy.
Mine is. I've done some things which caused financial loss because of my social views
& agenda.

I would think that the smaller the business, probably the more likely it is to mirror your opinions. The larger the business, the more likely it is to mirror mine. Once there are too many heads with too many opinions about what "right" means, ideological concerns tend to fall to the wayside almost entirely. The opinions you focus on are the ones that make money - which everyone can agree is a "good" goal for the company. But you're never going to make everyone happy on the ideological front - so it gets dropped.

But ultimately, the business needs to survive. So there are limits at times.

Funny - I don't know that any business "needs" to survive. That's an interesting notion. Though I suppose you were talking from an internal perspective. Still...

Btw, I won't suffer a financial loss for someone else's views, particularly if they're heinous.
Some people's opinions do not deserve my subsidy.

In a culture where survival itself is very nearly tied to financial wherewithal, this is obviously understandable. The moment someone encroaches on your ability to survive, even if that wasn't their intent, I wholeheartedly agree that something needs to be done. However, there's also sticking up for the idea that a person's personal life and views are very much their business, for American's that's upholding the 1st amendment.

It may be a fine line to toe at times, and obviously it is the decision of the business owner and what they think is going to impact their business the most/least. Is it firing the guy that everyone is yammering on about the opinions of? Or is it taking the hit because you're seen as someone whose support of free speech only extends so far as the black/red dividing line?

 

[Revoltingest]

Funny - I don't know that any business "needs" to survive. That's an interesting notion. Though I suppose you were talking from an internal perspective. Still...

My decisions are obviously based upon my personal priorities.
So my business matters to me & to a great many associates,
even if not to outsiders. Employees whose private actions
harm my business will find that I'll sever that relationship.
I'm not their parent, & thus not required to support them.

About money....
Many people decry businesses for being so focused upon it.
But if I were to fire an employee whose pubic speech outside
of the workplace which caused me financial loss, they'd defend
the employee because he's entitled to the money I pay...the
money he hindered my making. Very odd.
It becomes about the money for the critics of business.

My views on the 1st Amendment....
It's about government not interfering with our right to speech.
It is not about eliminating consequences for publicly speaking
out in one's relationship with others.
And even government recognizes this in licensing law, which
can sanction me for wrongful speech by my agents. Moreover,
I am prohibited from publicly holding view which could be seen
as violating fair housing laws.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Link the contract. Otherwise all you are doing is repeating what the league claims not the actual policy in question

Feel free to Google any of the language quoted and alleged to be from that agreement in this thread if you'd like to read the entire code of conduct.

What do you think the chances of the quotes seen in this thread that are alleged to have come from that document not being in that document, the one that formed the basis of the firing?

So let me get this straight:

- He can't have the job he wants, or many jobs nowadays, in which he can give his opinion.

If a job requires that he suppress certain opinions that his potential employers feels are damaging to business, he has the choice to consent or look elsewhere.

He can't post his opinion on social media.

Sure he can, but some of those opinions might cost him. I would recommend that anybody that attains national recognition and a 7- or 8-digit contract not post bigoted opinions. If one wants to know what kinds of opinions are considered bigoted by the community at large, just look at the comments of those who have been stung (I listed several above).

If one is unsure, it's generally a good idea to stay away from anything that demeans a law-abiding group of people. Pedophiles and drunk drivers are fair game by societal standards because they are breaking the law and harming or risking harm to others, but not gays, people of color, transgendered people, etc.. Most of these people are just trying to raise families, obey the law, and be good neighbors

Society is informing bigots like this Christian athlete that it considers such speech destructive and that those who elect to express religious bigotries will be dealt with using any number of legal means, including being fired. That's just the way it is, and in my opinion, how it should be.

Interestingly, though, atheists are the law-abiding group that it is still socially acceptable to demean without social or legal repercussion. Imagine the following scriptures, but with the words "black man" or "Jew" in place of

"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- 2 Corinthians 6:14

Pure bigotry, hateful and destructive.

He can't say his opinion in public because he's 'representative'.

Sure he can. He just might have to pay a price for it if his opinion is something that his audience rejects. Apparently, Australians are serious about hate speech given that they have laws against it. He knew he was taking a risk, and it was a risk he chose to take, perhaps emboldened by the idea that if he was coming from a religious perspective, that he would be immune to repercussions. If so, he was wrong.

So where and when exactly is he free to express himself? At home in his kitchen to a tomato?

If he wants to express his religious bigotry, I'm sure that he will be welcomed to do so in churches, Christian camps, religious schools, etc.. If he wants to speak to the public at large, the standards are likely to be different.

A nudist may like to express himself by undressing in nature, but he's going to find societal blow back if he doesn't restrict his nudism to specific locations like a nude beach or his backyard jacuzzi assuming he is not visible by the neighbors or from the street. Like-minded people will tolerate your choices. Those offended by public nudity will not.

I realize that you think that it is unfair to apply social pressure to free citizens expressing themselves in a lawful manner, and I agree to a point, but I place more value on diminishing the degree of bigoted self-expression that makes the lives of assorted law-abiding people more difficult and even dangerous at times. I value correcting that injustice by shaming and otherwise inconveniencing bigots more than I care about them having a right to spread their hatreds. Our values, or at least how we prioritize them, are different.

Maybe you think I'm going too far calling these people bigots and calling what their religion teaches them hate speech. Maybe you aren't aware of how they harm people, although I expect you are as both a woman and a Jew (I hope I got that right).

Identifying any of these groups as being immoral and fit for eternal destruction in the eye of a good and loving god is as damaging to them from the viewpoint of believers that accept that message as our rugby player has as being placed on a sex registry is damaging to how you are viewed by your neighbors, and how they will treat you, or the fact of you being a convicted felon gets out. It's like a scarlet letter on the forehead, the difference being that these latter two groups have broken the law by committing antisocial acts, whereas the targets of the Christian athlete were mostly law-abiding, thieves being the exception.

The point is not weaponizing employment termination because people hold views someone does not like.

Like @Rival , you seem to consider free expression the highest or nearly the highest value. I don't. I value tolerance of one another over that. Restricting speech using social means is fine with me.

All my life, I have accepted restrictions on my speech, beginning with telling my little sister that I hated her and being chided by my mother. I could have been punished at home for using obscenities, suspended from school for unacceptable language, disciplined in the Army for not addressing an officer properly, disciplined for certain forms of expression during my post-graduate medical training*, cited for contempt of court addressing a judge disrespectfully, treated worse by a policeman for disrespectful language, treated worse by TSA or customs for looking at them cross-eyed, etc..

It's a fact of life, and not a very difficult one to accommodate. This athlete either failed to learn that lesson or chose to ignore the possibility of being disciplined or fired, and is now paying the price, hopefully willingly.

Spoiler: amusing anecdote

Once, while on call as an intern, I was asked to pronounce dead the patient of a neurosurgeon who was attending to that patient during a months long coma. When I opened the chart to record the note about the death, I saw that this physician had written nothing but the single word "unchanged" dozens and dozens of times, filling several pages with nothing but "unchanged" and a scribbled signature. This is far below acceptable medical standards for charting a visit. There's no evidence that the patient was even examined.

I knew that I might catch hell for it, but I thought that writing just "Changed" and nothing else was pretty funny, funny enough to take the risk. I was called onto the carpet and dressed down for it by the head of the house staff program at our hospital, but I got a big laugh and a good story in exchange.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How many people do you think I could find that think I am spiritually "screwed" by not believing in (a) God. Not very inclusive is it? Should they be fired for such a view?

Once again, it's not about holding a view. It's about when and where it is proper to express it, and what the consequences of provocative or offensive speech might be. Sometimes, it is appropriate to discontinue a financial relationship such as employment agreement or sponsoring agreement based on language or actions that are legal, but reflect poorly on the one writing the checks.

His opinions have nothing to do with how he plays rugby.

He's hired to play rugby, but that is only a means to an end, namely, the owners of the teams generating a profit. He's actually hired to help those owners make money, which, as his contract states, includes refraining from expressing certain opinions that are thought to potentially cost those owners money if expressed.

Yes but he is effectively being erased by being silenced on every platform and at work just because he happens to have out of vogue opinions.

I'll bet that he doesn't feel erased. And he was always free to express most of his opinions as we all are, even here on Religious Forums, where we have agreed not to express ourselves in certain proscribed ways. Do you feel erased by that? I don't. OK, so we don't get to criticize the moderators or promote a competing website. Take it or leave it. It's not much of an imposition to accept those terms, nor was it to expect the athlete to keep his religious bigotry to himself.

So can I fire a religious believer for holding a view that is incompatible with my view as an atheist?

You can fire him for expressing that opinion under certain circumstances, not for holding it.

Somehow, the religious feel that they are entitled to protections not available to others for speaking their minds if they can claim that it is their religious belief. Why should that matter more than if one were expressing any other type of belief? To me, freedom of religion means the freedom to believe what you like, to pray, to read holy books, to engage in legal religious rituals such as baptism, to commune with like-minded people in places like homes and churches, to proselytize to those that want to hear it, to wear crucifixes and adorn their cars with religious bumper stickers, to write books or form Internet sites promoting their faith, to decorate their homes and businesses for religious holidays, and similar activities that don't affect outsiders that don't choose to be affected..

That should be enough. If they wish to express their hatreds outside of protected environments, expression which is damaging to the targets of that hatred, they do so at their own risk just as an atheistic white supremacist would. The fact that your hatred is religiously inspired should not be grounds for offering protections not available to others not claiming a religious motivation.

The religious want too much. They also want to be able to impose their values on society using the force of government. I support the right to private religion (or no religion) as I described it above. If you enter the marketplace of ideas with a mixed crowd of participants, you might find that your religion is not only not respected, it is disrespected for what it has taught you. In this sense, it's helpful when people like this athlete speak up publicly to show the world what his church teaches him, and to show him and his church what how people feel about that..

I support anything legal that promotes the attrition of the church and its cultural hegemony. I want that church to cease teaching people to hate. This matter will damage the church.

It is the absurd standard of "Anything that disagrees with X is homophobic" defination?

Yes, anything that disagrees with homosexual people being acceptable people is homophobic. It doesn't matter if you sincerely believe that homosexuals are hell-bound and are only trying to help them avoid perdition. If you tell the world that homosexuals are considered appropriate for destruction in the lake of fire according to the values of a morally perfect and loving god, you are spreading harmful homophobic memes and may well be chastised for so doing.

People that disapprove of homosexuality who aren't sure what comments about homosexuals are considered offensive probably ought to be still on the matter.

One is about religion which does have various levels of protection, or lack of in this case, regarding employment. Atheism is not a religion so does not have such protection in many cases.

I can't find a reason for treating religious people and institutions as being entitled to more than equal protection under the law.

As you probably know, in the States, atheism has been declared equivalent to religion for certain purposes:

"The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005).   The Establishment Clause itself says only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls "nonreligion."&# 8194; In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as "the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion."

source​

His freedom of speech is infringed, meaning the employer can gag him when he is not working.

No. He can gag himself - or not if he's willing to pay the price for socially unacceptable speech. That's what freedom is. Obviously, everybody can't be free to do everything he desires, or none of us will have as many options or as good a quality of life as we do by limiting some choices.

I've become far less enamored of the principle of free speech in the second half of my life. Once, the American media were restricted by the Fairness Doctrine, which required giving equal air time to opposing views.

Then, the law was abolished in the name of free speech, which unleashed a wave of conservative indoctrination beginning with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, which has done untold damage to Americans, as the susceptible were recruited to carry water for an agenda designed to harm them and everybody else but the uberwealthy through the concentration of wealth, power and privilege in direct opposition to basic American values such as a level playing field, equality under the law, and a healthy and financially secure middle class.

I disagree with this approach. It encroaches on a person's freedom, effectively making them company property.

Really? Choosing to take a job that you are free to leave at any time is becoming somebody's property? How is it any more of an encroachment on the employee's freedom than disallowing his employer from letting him go when he is seen as harmful to the business would be an encroachment on the employer's freedom?

I question their defination of homophobia. The term has become a buzzword and umbrella term for anything.

I disagree. Most people objecting to what they call homophobic behavior are in accord about what that is. Basically, it is any disparaging or demeaning comment about homosexuals or homosexuality. Why does one need to express disapproval of homosexuality. Why should one even care?