Arguably, it's not a conventional mainstream religious view and one that is confined to the fruit loop religious extremists and not one promulgated by the mainstream Christian religions any more. Could you imagine the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury or any significant Christian leader tweeting or re-tweeting that.And you are perfectly entitled to this view - that's free speech after all - and in fact I agree more with you than I do with Folau, but I also believe that:
- He is entitled on his personal social media account to express a conventional religious view;
- That what he said is not hate speech (otherwise we'll need to shut down the Abrahamic faiths - or at least make then comply with some people's sensibilities);
- That what he said does not contravene the RA's Code of Conduct (we don't know what his contract says);
- That is biggest "sin" has been to offend the easily outraged and the RA executives fearful of the commercial consequences.
He is fully aware that because of his status in society as a Wallaby that anything posted on his personal social media account has a traction far beyond immediate friends and family so I don't buy that excuse. He has been called out on this before so he knew exactly what he was doing. All he had to do is to call on people to repent, accept the sweet lord Jesus as their saviour and nobody would have a problem with him living his religion and calling on people to be saved and live forever with him in paradise.
Whether it qualifies as 'Hate Speech' or not, I wouldn't be definitive on. I don't think it is, but I am quite sure that it is in contravention of RA's code of conduct. It would make gay people feel unwelcome if it is not condemned by RA and if action is not taken by them. Rugby is an inclusive sport.
Were Asics within their rights to tear up their sponsorship contract with Israel Folau? Absolutely.
Are Qantas entitled to review their sponsorship of RA in light of his comments and RA's reaction to his comments? Absolutely.
He is entitled to freedom of speech but not freedom from the consequences of that speech. You can talk about the 'easily offended' and 'snowflakes' all you want, but professional rugby depends on sponsorship and if Israel goes out of his way to test the bounds of his contract, knowing that sponsors do not want to be associated with his views, then he has to live with the consequences of that.
As already discussed, his post rugby options have been extremely curtailed by this.