Reversing the Roles in the Israel Folau Case


Imagine this. It’s 1965 and a young Barman in a Australian pup suddenly yells out to everyone in the pub that he is gay. Now in 1965 this was not accepted by the very conservative crowd in the pub and they were offended and believed it to be an attack on the natural family, their very way of living.

All of the patrons start verbally abusing the staff member and calling for him to be fired. In the following days the patrons protest outside the venue threatening to take their money to another venue unless the barman is sacked. The manager of the pub caves in and fires the young man from his job.

Did he deserve to be fired for declaring his sexuality a part of his self identity? Was the fact that it offended so many back then a justifiable reason to sack him? Or are those who got offended in the wrong for destroying a career over a very personal thing?

So if in this story you believe that the barman should not have been fired for his sexuality in 1965 then why did Israel Folau deserve to be fired today? He simply posted a quote from the bible he loves, he identifies as a Christian and does not want to keep his beliefs and self identity in the closet. He wants to be a loud and proud Christian and why shouldn’t he?

If someone is offended because it doesn’t match with their beliefs, that is there problem. Which ever way you flip the coin someone will disagree or be offended, but we can’t deny one persons self identity over another, we need to accept our differences and move on.

At the end of the day as long as words are not calling for violence then they should be protected by free speech, because once you silence one for the benefit of another you have discriminated, like it or not that is the cold and hard facts of this debate.

Author Details