Folau’s Religious Freedom

This article critically analyzes the freedom of religion and code of conduct of Folau’s comment referring Bible with LGBT group stating that they were all destined for hell. The article discusses the LGBT rights in Australia, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Rugby Australia Code of Conduct. It also presents arguments for and against religious discrimination and the dismissal of the Australian Footballer. The article concludes with recommendations for the Board of Rugby to involve in community services and community engagement programs to enhance its players’ view towards cultural diversity.

Running Head: Folau’s Religious Freedom
Folau’s Religious Freedom
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

1FOLAU’S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
The Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights in Australia have gained its
advancement since the late twentieth to the early twenty first century. LGBT people have been
granted equal rights with that of the other people of Australian jurisdiction. These rights include
protection from discrimination and equal treatment with the similar rights and responsibilities as
the rest of Australians. According to Carbery 2010, it has been explained that since the British
empire and colonial days, the idea of LGBT and same sex marriages have been progressively
repealed until the recent times when it led to the huge revolution among people and the same sex
marriage was recognized and legalized in Australia on 9th December 2017. Post this order, all the
people have an equal right to consent for all sexual activities and all the people who were
convicted since 2003 for such consensual sexual activities have been discharged of all their
criminal records with the retrospective effect (Brewer 2014). The thesis aims to bring out the
critical analysis of the freedom of religion and code of conduct of Folau’s comment referring
Bible with LGBT group stating that they were all destined for hell. He was dismissed on ground
of violation of his freedom of religion.
According to Sheldrick 2016, the same sex marriages have been recognized as de facto
relationships and the same has been recognized by the states and territories by ways of civil
unions, domestic partnerships, registered or unregistered relationships. In March 2018, an order
was passed stating that the joint and step child of such relationships shall hold legal status
throughout the nation with respect to its legitimacy, succession and other rights and
responsibilities. Thus, discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation or gender identity is a
statutory offence and the same has been granted in states and territories with concurrent federal
regimes to protect such people.

2FOLAU’S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Folau’s comment has initiated the debate between the viability of two core democratic
principles. Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that
every person shall have the right to hold their opinion and express them without any interference.
However, the opinion should not disrespect the reputation of others and that such opinion should
be in favor of protection of national security or public order or morality. Further, section 26 of
the Covenant imparts equal protection to the people from discrimination on any ground of caste,
color, creed, sex, political opinion and so on.
It has been argued that the false antagonism between the groups of Church and LGBT
Australians has led to the coalition of Freedom of Faith (Encarnacion 2014). It has been
explained that the idea of religious institutions pleading for exemptions on grounds of anti-
discrimination laws should not be entertained because such exemptions lead to the downfall of
positive rights of the people, which forms the foundation of cultural diversity and competence
(Walhof 2013). An outstanding example of such endorsement is the employment and other
requirements in public enterprises and schools, where every teacher has to model a particular
religious life (Topsfield 2018). Such activities narrowed down the scope of Equal opportunity
Laws to the right of the religious schools to employ people from their preferred belief (ABC
News 2018). However, such endorsements are not only common in schools and enterprises but
also to the parents and people who would not join an enterprise or would not send the children to
school with a different belief. Similarly, in spite of anti-discriminatory laws, the LGBT and same
sex married people face such risks with continued exemptions to more and more agencies from
such protection laws. According to Koppelman 2014, it can be explained that the resistance of
the religion and stakes of the gay rights are inherently dependent upon the purposes of the anti-
discrimination law. Therefore, it can be said that, to ensure that the equal rights are imparted to

3FOLAU’S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
all and at once, such exemptions should not be allowed on any grounds and the discrimination,
even if on a positive note, should be kept minimum. Therefore, it can be argued that the
dismissal of the Australian Footballer was justified because such opinions are in contradiction of
public order influencing the topic of religious freedom towards the gain of political priority.
Ethnicity, Religion and Culture has always wrestled with freedom and the establishment of
multicultural society is difficult until such rights and responsibility have been equally imparted
in a strict legitimization of laws and policies. Religion as a single moral force can be a
diminishing effect but together, it can lead to serious political clout.
On the other hand, it has been argued that religious discrimination is a powerful avenue
for the people who undergo discrimination on a regular basis (Perry and Whitehead 2016). The
issue of interference of corporations interfering with the private life of an individual is a
concerning matter. The extent of such interference has not been delivered by the codes. Article
18 of the Covenant states that every person has a right of freedom to opinion and its expression
although such freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions. But the person is entitled to opine
beyond his working hours without the interference of the enterprise or the corporate employer of
such person. It has been opined that the person as successful as the footballer has a brand image
to maintain. However, such image cannot be contradictory to Article 18 of the Covenant and
deprive the person of his freedom of expression and opinion. It has been explained that Australia
is a country of cultural diversity and competence and hence, religious freedom should always be
protected without any discrimination (Li and Cohen 2013). People with any opinion including
those with no opinion should be entitled the right to express their opinions freely without any
fear of discrimination or employer’s interference (Hasbany 2013). According to Smith, Son and
Kim 2014, it has been explained that the level of democracy has led to the acceptance of the gay

4FOLAU’S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
rights but such acceptance has only evolved with time and religious flexibility. In other words,
the player could have adopted to the rights of the gay people but such acceptance did not evolve
due to strong views towards religion and its incorporated provisions. It cannot be said that such
provisions are wrong. But the debate lies where the pro visions require flexible applicability to
the changing times and acceptability of the people. According to Koppelman 2014, it has been
explained that the gay rights and religious accommodations are the core issues of
antidiscrimination laws. This means that the resistance of religion and the stake of the gay rights
are concordat to the objects and purpose of the applicability of the anti-discrimination laws.
According to Zwartz 2006, a similar situation was seen where the former Archibishop had
opposed homosexuality on the ground of sins and the same was accepted by his successors. It
was explained by the others that such critic has led to the rigidity of religion and its values in the
lives of the people ignoring the essence of Human Rights and equal protection, which is also an
essence of religious values. Therefore, it can be explained that the Australian Footballer has been
justified on the grounds of right to freedom of religion without any discrimination or corporate
(employer) interference.
Critically analyzing the comment of the player, it can be understood that the comment
was in violation of the Article 18 and 26 of the Covenant and also the Rugby Australia Code of
Conduct. Section 1.2 of the Code expressly states that then players should treat all people with
equal rights and responsibilities irrespective of their gender or gender identity, sexual orientation,
ethnicity and so on. Any form of bullying or discrimination shall be taken strictly by the Board
of Rugby. Sections 1.6, 1.7, 1.8 expressly states that any public comment, social media
experiences, or any other act should be in concordance with the reputation of the Union, team,
Club, Game, rules and regulations. Therefore, analyzing the right to freedom of expression and

5FOLAU’S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
religion with that of the code of conduct, it can be analyzed that though religion is a personal
aspect, but the public comment of the same shall not result in the disrespect of others. In
addition, it can be stated that although the freedom of opinion and expression is a statutory right
but also restricts its usage in favor of national security, public order and morality. Analyzing the
same with Code of Conduct, it can be stated that the act of the person should be such that it does
not amount to bullying or discrimination on any grounds, explicitly being those of sexual
orientation and gender identity. The idea of LGBT and same sex marriages have been
progressively repealed until the recent times when it led to the huge revolution among people
and the same sex marriage was recognized. Therefore, it can be conferred that the comment of
Folau is a religious comment and he exercised the freedom of expression for the same but it
resulted in discrimination and disrespect of LGBT and Same sex Marriage community of the
people and since it is a statutory freedom and protected from discrimination, such comment
attracted liabilities in the official capacity because such comment also influenced the attitude of
public towards the Union, club, and the Team. However, if such comment was made in private, it
may not have attracted similar consequences, but public comment and tweeting the same as
social media comment resulted in the contrary due to the nature of the comment and its
publication.
It can be concluded that Australia is a community of diversity and competence and hence
has widely recognized the official designation of the LGBT and the same sex marriage rights
along with the legitimacy of the child adopted in the due course of such partnership or marriage.
Although Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) are strong critics to the recognition
of LGBT and same sex marriage rights, but the political circumstances play a major role by their
leaders openly talking about it and recognizing their rights at par with other Australian citizens.

6FOLAU’S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Strong supports have been accorded from Australian Greens and Australian Labor Party along
with the Liberal Party expressing the advancement of same sex marriage and LGBT rights in the
country along with the diminishing discrimination of such people as form of religious or political
forum.
Booming examples like the 1992 case when the Keating Government abolished the ban
placed on the LGB personnel and her dismissal on the grounds of her sexuality (The Canberra
Times 1992), joining of an official defense contingent in the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi
Gras march for the first time in the year of 2008 and the same continued to happen in the
designated uniform of members in 2013 (Department of Defence 2015), show that there has
been an increase in the support to LGBT and same sex marriage communities. Hence, the Board
of Rugby can be recommended to involve in such activities including community services and
community engagement programs to enhance its players’ view towards cultural diversity.
However, acceptance can be a person’s personal choice and strong religious beliefs can be a
strong barrier against the same, but a step can help in reformation of views and future acceptance
of all people as their own irrespective of their caste, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation,
gender and gender identity. Another barrier to the acceptance of the gay rights by people is the
strong affiliation to the sexual orientation and discrimination based on such grounds. It can only
be brought under control by effective implementation of anti-discrimination laws in the Rugby
Team as a part of code of conduct and statutory recognition of equal rights.

7FOLAU’S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
REFERENCES:
"Ruddock says religious freedoms report about narrowing, not expanding, discrimination
laws". ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 10 October 2018. Retrieved 24
September 2019
"Uproar as Govt ends forces' ban on gays". The Canberra Times. ACT: National Library of
Australia. 24 November 1992. p. 1. Retrieved 24 September 2019.
Brewer, P.R., 2014. Public opinion about gay rights and gay marriage. International Journal of
Public Opinion Research, 26(3), pp.279-282.
Carbery, Graham (2010). "Towards Homosexual Equality in Australian Criminal Law: A Brief
History" (2nd edition).
Department of Defence (7 March 2015). "Largest ever Defence contingent to march in Mardi
Gras parade" (Press release). Australian Government. Archived from the original on 24
September 2019
Encarnación, O.G., 2014. Gay rights: Why democracy matters. Journal of Democracy, 25(3),
pp.90-104..
Hasbany, R.L., 2013. Homosexuality and religion. Routledge.
Koppelman, A., 2014. Gay Rights, Religious Accommodations, and the Purposes of
Antidiscrimination Law. S. Cal. L. Rev., 88, p.619.
Li, Y.J. and Cohen, A.B., 2013. 10 Religion, Sexuality, and Family. Religion, personality, and
social behavior, p.213.

8FOLAU’S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Mark, D 2019, ‘Israel Folau to take Rugby Australian to Fair Work Commission over contract
termination’, ABC News, 6 June, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-06/israel-folau-sues-
rugby-australia-for-breach-of-contract/*******4 (Links to an external site.) [viewed 27 June
2019].
Tunny, G 2019, ‘Israel Folau, Rugby Australia and the price of equality in Australian sport’,
ABC News, 31 May, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-31/israel-folau-rugby-australia-and-
the-price-of-equality/*******0 (Links to an external site.) [viewed 27 June 2019].
Hartman, LP & Desjardins, J 2008, Business ethics: Decision making for personal integrity &
social responsibility, McGraw-Hill irwin, Boston, pp 63-109. see Chapter 3: Philosophical ethics
and business https://equella.rmit.edu.au/rmit/file/0815e3d6-0fcf-3116-63ae-98e378546eae/1/
*******7731461.pdf
Trevino, LK and Nelson, KA (2011) Managing business ethics : straight talk about how to do it
right, Ch. 3 Deciding what's right: a psychological approach. (p. 71-110). 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ :
John Wiley.
Perry, S.L. and Whitehead, A.L., 2016. Religion and public opinion toward same‐sex relations,
marriage, and adoption: Does the type of practice matter?. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 55(3), pp.637-651.
Sheldrick, Drew (4 February 2016). "Overseas same-sex marriage recognition back in the
spotlight"
Smith, T.W., Son, J. and Kim, J., 2014. Public attitudes toward homosexuality and gay rights
across time and countries.

9FOLAU’S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Topsfield, Jewel (9 October 2018). "Religious freedom review enshrines right of schools to turn
away gay children and teachers". The Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Media. Retrieved 24
September 2019.
Walhof, D.R., 2013. Habermas, same-sex marriage and the problem of religion in public
life. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 39(3), pp.225-242.
Zwartz, Barney (3 February 2006). "Church imperilled by gays: archbishop". The Age.
Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved 24 September 2019