Gandalf:
Quote:And I wonder why not? You have proven yourself willing to get on your moral high horse over all sorts of cases regarding alleged individual attacks on freedom. Here we had an employee of the ABC expressing their freedom of speech, followed by a deluge of outrage from members of the government no less - you know the people who control funding and board appointments to the organisation that she worked for - directly calling for her sacking. Clearly a case of someone's employment undergoing undue pressure because of her views. This should have been right up your alley FD.
She wasn't fired. As I explained in the OP, what actually transpired was a perfect example of how free speech is supposed to work. No-one defended her freedom to say stupid poo because it was never denied her.
Quote:Irrelevant. The issue is freedom of speech, not religion.
In Folau's case, it is both. In Yassmin's, it had nothing to do with freedom of religion.
Quote:So what are you actually arguing then FD? For the law to be changed?'
No. The law specifically prevents people from sacking someone based on their religion. That's the grounds on which Folau is taking RA to court.
Quote:Do you actually take issue with RA having the right to dictate the terms of their contract to Folau - when it can include sacking for religious views?
Yes. That would be an illegal contract term. Or more accurately, an illegal interpretation of a very broad term.
Quote:Or is your only issue that the 'homofascists' haven't come clean and admitted that he was sacked for his religious views?
That is only an issue with the homofascists who try to misrperesent what is going on. They flip flop between defending it on the grounds of a contractual technicality (and lying in the sense that this means it had nothing to do with his religious views) and actually taking a principled stance on the issue (freedom from religion - which a surprising number of homofascists here have come out of the closet on).