Lets leave the entire Folau issue alone for now..... I would like people's opinions on the following scenario, because whilst I have always said that the recent Folau issue to me, is not about religious beliefs, but contractual, let's turn the tables a bit with the following scenario.
People are saying that the contractual stipulations should never have prevented Folau from stating his opinion or posting on religious grounds, and that it is freedom of speech...…and that they are taking away his right to freedom of speech, and he should never have been forced to not post this religious information, and that he also could or should never get terminated for doing exactly this.
Don't compare this to Folau, treat it as the actual events happened, as per below....obviously, hypothetical
David Pocock decides this year, that he is an atheist.
In January 2019 Pocock posts on Facebook to his 3 million followers...….. that Jesus was gay.... and that he had to have been gay, and that the bible conclusively proves this beyond any reasonable doubt, and Christians need to accept that this is what happened.
Even if it is complete and utter rubbish to anyone else, this is Pocock's personal belief, and nothing will sway his opinion
In January, Pocock gets warned by the ARU, to stop posting things like this on social media, because it "could" turn supporters away from supporting him as a rugby player, but more importantly, it could turn people away from supporting Australian rugby, and it is a unnecessary problem that they could do without.
Pocock says fine, and apologizes.
In April, Pocock posts on Facebook to his 3 million followers, that Jesus was caught in a garden with a young boy, hardly clothed, and because of that, he must have done some very dirty deeds with this young boy, and that Christians cannot dispute this..... because the bible itself..... says that this actually happened.
Australian rugby say to Pocock that his posts are negatively affecting him as a player..... as well as Australian rugby itself, and that he needs to cease this behavior immediately because they cannot risk the potential damage that this could do to Australian rugby nationally and internationally because the ARU have a massive Christian support base.
The disciplinary meeting / hearing is recorded, with the express warning to Pocock, on record, that should he ever post anything like this again, or continue with this behavior, which would be his 3rd offense, he could face dismissal.
Pocock says sorry, it won't happen again.
In July, Pocock posts another very degrading post about Jesus and Christians, telling all Christians how incredibly stupid they are, to believe the bible, because if they believe the bible, then they must also support all gays, because Jesus was gay.
Australian rugby hold a disciplinary hearing and find him guilty and dismiss him with immediate effect
Are some posters here saying that Australian rugby can never have requested that Pocock not post religious stuff to begin with, because that is Pocock's individual right to freedom of speech or expression, and that it supersedes any other law or rule or contractual obligation?
Are some posters here saying that there is no way at all that Pocock could ever get dismissed for this, because these are his personal religious views, which also constitute freedom of speech or expression, therefore he can never be terminated for this?
Are some posters here saying that the ARU have no rights in this whatsoever, to defend or protect their national and international brand?
Are some posters here saying that the ARU should never be worried or concerned with offending or losing the support of all their Christian supporters if they continue to keep Pocock employed?
Are some posters here saying that freedom of speech or freedom of expression, entitles anyone, to post whatever they want to, about any person, or about any topic, and never face any legal consequences?
Don't turn this into another religious rant...….. I would like this to be a decent debate, nothing more...……..I would just like to know, based on the situation above, what are your thoughts on the right of each party involved in this incident as described above...… what in your view are the rights of the ARU, and what are the rights of Pocock?
Also, in your view, are the ARU at fault, and deserve to get sued, or is Pocock at fault and deserves to get dismissed?