Is it right that Israel Folau should get the sack for his 'Hell awaits gay people' comments?

[Rival]

He broadcast his thoughts on social media, he did not keep them in his head as you suggest which is apparent because we all know what he was on about.

No we don't. Social media is exactly that - for sharing opinions, not for having socially acceptable opinions that most people happen to agree with. If social media were only for socially acceptable opinions, there'd be absolutely no point to it. He, too, has the right to a platform. As long as it is just words and not actions, it's in his head.

 

[lukethethird]

No we don't. Social media is exactly that - for sharing opinions, not for having socially acceptable opinions that most people happen to agree with. If social media were only for socially acceptable opinions, there'd be absolutely no point to it. He, too, has the right to a platform. As long as it is just words and not actions, it's in his head.

I imagine he is still free to post as he pleases.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Australian rugby player is to be sacked after a social media post in which he also said "drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters" should "repent" because "only Jesus saves".

He also apparently wrote that "hell awaits" gay people, or perhaps he was referring to his entire list being hell-bound, which is undoubtedly what he has been taught to think.

This is standard Christian bigotry, which, as we see here, is mostly directed at law-abiding people like atheists, unmarried people having sex (fornicators), intoxicated people (drunks), and those worshiping other gods (idolators).

What do you think about his sacking?

I approve. Everything played out just as it should have. The athlete got to express the hatreds of his religion and to demonstrate to the world what his Bible and church teach him, and the Australian Rugby authorities got to show the world that they are better people than this hypocritical bigot who would probably tell you that his religion teaches loving one another, even as he condemns others to hell.

No, it's his opinion and he's allowed it.

And he was free to express it without being arrested. That's all that the principle of guaranteed free speech entitles one to. It doesn't protect one from being fired, boycotted, despised, shunned, having his social media account closed, or being verbally dressed down. Citizens are not the ones guaranteeing the right to free speech, and are not obligated to tolerate hateful language. They are only obligated to obey the law, which allows people to retaliate in the ways listed above as long as they are lawful behaviors

if people are allowed to say gays can marry, people should be allowed to say that hell awaits them

They are allowed to say that hell awaits them. This guy did. It cost him his job, and perhaps his professional rugby career, and possibly earned him the opprobrium of millions, but he wasn't arrested. That's all he's entitled to.

Hasn't everybody had enough opportunity to see what can happen when someone expresses these kinds of opinions, especially people in the public eye making their comments publicly? Think Paula Deen, Michael Richards (Kramer on Seinfeld), Phil Robertson (the Duck Dynasty bigot), Roseanne Barr, and Kevin Hart. What was this guy thinking? Has he been living under a rock? Are Australians unaware of the people named above and their fates?

There's not only a price to pay for certain kinds of comments, there's a price to pay for ignoring evidence and failing to conclude that if you're a celebrity and want to publicly scapegoat some target, you just might have to pay a large price. In free countries, you are allowed to express those opinions without fearing being arrested for expressing them, but it still might cost you.

Saying that every employee represents the company and therefore must espouse my personal beliefs is enslavement talk.

The message is that if an employees opinions hurt the business he works for according to his employer's judgment, that employer is free to replace that employee, perhaps even with somebody with the exact same opinions, but with the sense to censor himself or suffer the same fate. There's no enslavement in that understanding. It's an implied or, in the case of the Rugby league, an explicit contract. Both parties need to be satisfied for the relationship to continue.

Do those P's and Q's involve forgetting who you are and what you believe?

No. They involve showing judgment in expressing who you are and what you believe. Don't we all have to do that all of the time anyway? I played bridge yesterday with seven other people that I know very well, and with whom we socialize in other ways, as when we all went out to dinner together afterward. Judie is a Trump supporter from Arkansas, I am a liberal who wants to see Trump out of the White House, and who doesn't think much of the culture of the American South.

She and I never discuss politics for this reason. Yesterday, somebody else, a Canadian, challenged her on her conservatism, and Judie went into political mode, talking about Hillary being a criminal needing prosecution. I never opened my mouth, instead asking whose lead to the next trick it was. I never forgot who I was or what I believed, but I did mind my P's and Q's.

He has a right to his opinion no matter if its a popular one.

Then I'm sure that you agree that others have the right to their opinions about him, and what they think should be the consequences of him exercising his right.

All that appears to be being done here is that people with socially conservative and religious views are being shut down and told to keep them to themselves, while their liberal counterparts are allowed to speak freely.

People that actually embrace the principles such as loving one another that religious bigots like this athlete claim for themselves but don't embody are telling these people that they need to conform to a prevailing social standard if they wish to engage society. They don't need to think any particular way, but if they choose to express those thoughts or act on them, there may be social consequences.

My father was a bigot, and my mother a social justice warrior. How they got together remains a mystery. My father had the greater influence on me initially, and as a teenager, I was making racist and bigoted comments to my friends in school, who were mostly raised in liberal households (it was the late 60's in Southern California).

These people let me know in no uncertain terms that my expressed conservative opinions were hateful, and that they disapproved of my voicing them - pretty much what you are describing here. That pressure affected my behavior immediately, and my beliefs eventually. It was a constructive social pressure, and I approve of it being used wherever helpful.

No, this isn't alright. It's just culture's way of holding yet another group down just because it's not socially acceptable to have a certain view right now. Sorry, you don't get to do that.

Actually, they do get to do that if they do so legally. Some groups need to be opposed. Think Charlottesville and the bigots with tiki torches marching. Those people hate you and me, you for your faith and me for my lack of it and for being politically liberal, and it's alright with me if they are subjected to some blow-back.

I would suggest everyone here who is so hung up on punishing someone for expressing an opinion to stop and reflect for a bit. Because you need to realize it's a 2 way street. Today your punishing someone for their opinion, tomorrow it could be you being punished for yours.

I'm good with that. As I mentioned above when discussing Judie at bridge, I have opinions that I never express because of that fact, and that is fine.

 

[Brickjectivity]

He also apparently wrote that "hell awaits" gay people, or perhaps he was referring to his entire list being hell-bound, which is undoubtedly what he has been taught to think.

This is standard Christian bigotry, which, as we see here, is mostly directed at law-abiding people like atheists, unmarried people having sex (fornicators), intoxicated people (drunks), and those worshiping other gods (idolators).



I approve. Everything played out just as it should have. The athlete got to express the hatreds of his religion and to demonstrate to the world what his Bible and church teach him, and the Australian Rugby authorities got to show the world that they are better people than this hypocritical bigot who would probably tell you that his religion teaches loving one another, even as he condemns others to hell.



And he was free to express it without being arrested. That's all that the principle of guaranteed free speech entitles one to. It doesn't protect one from being fired, boycotted, despised, shunned, having his social media account closed, or being verbally dressed down. Citizens are not the ones guaranteeing the right to free speech, and are not obligated to tolerate hateful language. They are only obligated to obey the law, which allows people to retaliate in the ways listed above as long as they are lawful behaviors



They are allowed to say that hell awaits them. This guy did. It cost him his job, and perhaps his professional rugby career, and possibly earned him the opprobrium of millions, but he wasn't arrested. That's all he's entitled to.

Hasn't everybody had enough opportunity to see what can happen when someone expresses these kinds of opinions, especially people in the public eye making their comments publicly? Think Paula Deen, Michael Richards (Kramer on Seinfeld), Phil Robertson (the Duck Dynasty bigot), Roseanne Barr, and Kevin Hart. What was this guy thinking? Has he been living under a rock? Are Australians unaware of the people named above and their fates?

There's not only a price to pay for certain kinds of comments, there's a price to pay for ignoring evidence and failing to conclude that if you're a celebrity and want to publicly scapegoat some target, you just might have to pay a large price. In free countries, you are allowed to express those opinions without fearing being arrested for expressing them, but it still might cost you.



The message is that if an employees opinions hurt the business he works for according to his employer's judgment, that employer is free to replace that employee, perhaps even with somebody with the exact same opinions, but with the sense to censor himself or suffer the same fate. There's no enslavement in that understanding. It's an implied or, in the case of the Rugby league, an explicit contract. Both parties need to be satisfied for the relationship to continue.



No. They involve showing judgment in expressing who you are and what you believe. Don't we all have to do that all of the time anyway? I played bridge yesterday with seven other people that I know very well, and with whom we socialize in other ways, as when we all went out to dinner together afterward. Judie is a Trump supporter from Arkansas, I am a liberal who wants to see Trump out of the White House, and who doesn't think much of the culture of the American South.

She and I never discuss politics for this reason. Yesterday, somebody else, a Canadian, challenged her on her conservatism, and Judie went into political mode, talking about Hillary being a criminal needing prosecution. I never opened my mouth, instead asking whose lead to the next trick it was. I never forgot who I was or what I believed, but I did mind my P's and Q's.



Then I'm sure that you agree that others have the right to their opinions about him, and what they think should be the consequences of him exercising his right.



People that actually embrace the principles such as loving one another that religious bigots like this athlete claim for themselves but don't embody are telling these people that they need to conform to a prevailing social standard if they wish to engage society. They don't need to think any particular way, but if they choose to express those thoughts or act on them, there may be social consequences.

My father was a bigot, and my mother a social justice warrior. How they got together remains a mystery. My father had the greater influence on me initially, and as a teenager, I was making racist and bigoted comments to my friends in school, who were mostly raised in liberal households (it was the late 60's in Southern California).

These people let me know in no uncertain terms that my expressed conservative opinions were hateful, and that they disapproved of my voicing them - pretty much what you are describing here. That pressure affected my behavior immediately, and my beliefs eventually. It was a constructive social pressure, and I approve of it being used wherever helpful.



Actually, they do get to do that if they do so legally. Some groups need to be opposed. Think Charlottesville and the bigots with tiki torches marching. Those people hate you and me, you for your faith and me for my lack of it and for being politically liberal, and it's alright with me if they are subjected to some blow-back.



I'm good with that. As I mentioned above when discussing Judie at bridge, I have opinions that I never express because of that fact, and that is fine.

There is a page not written by me entitled 8 Signs You're a Slave Instead of an Employee. Three of the eight signs are: You're Terrified of Your Bosses, The Workplace Exhibits Cultlike Conditions and They Engage in Scheduling Abuse. The League exhibits these three. (College sports exhibit two more which are: Vacation Time is Discouraged and You Work as an Intern.)

Basically what you have is a slave here who is not allowed to have his religion and hold this job at the same time. The league is trying to extinguish his faith from the public sphere by pressuring those sports figures that they have influence with to be silent about it. It doesn't matter if his contract says they own him its still unethical. They want him to work for them on condition that he give up his religion. They're a cult employer beating their employees into agreement, and that is not uncommon for sports leagues around the world. Sure while he's playing or practicing he should do his job, but when he's not at work his time should be his and without fear of reprisal for his personal choices. Suppose he wants to go fishing, but the league doesn't like the imagery of their player doing that. Do they get to tell him not to fish? That's not right. They're his employer, and they have certain responsibilities not to try to take ownership over him.

 

[Rival]

And he was free to express it without being arrested. That's all that the principle of guaranteed free speech entitles one to. It doesn't protect one from being fired, boycotted, despised, shunned, having his social media account closed, or being verbally dressed down. Citizens are not the ones guaranteeing the right to free speech, and are not obligated to tolerate hateful language. They are only obligated to obey the law, which allows people to retaliate in the ways listed above as long as they are lawful behaviours

So essentially you still agree that social media and other platforms have the right only to allow people to express beliefs and opinions that represent the majority/what the company believes? And that employers can sack you for not sharing their beliefs and/or other socially acceptable beliefs? So what exactly are people with his type of beliefs supposed to do? In your scheme they basically just shut up and pretend they don't exist. So they just get to be erased.

I'm not OK with that.

They are allowed to say that hell awaits them. This guy did. It cost him his job, and perhaps his professional rugby career, and possibly earned him the opprobrium of millions, but he wasn't arrested. That's all he's entitled to.

Hasn't everybody had enough opportunity to see what can happen when someone expresses these kinds of opinions, especially people in the public eye making their comments publicly? Think Paula Deen, Michael Richards (Kramer on Seinfeld), Phil Robertson (the Duck Dynasty bigot), Roseanne Barr, and Kevin Hart. What was this guy thinking? Has he been living under a rock? Are Australians unaware of the people named above and their fates?

There's not only a price to pay for certain kinds of comments, there's a price to pay for ignoring evidence and failing to conclude that if you're a celebrity and want to publicly scapegoat some target, you just might have to pay a large price. In free countries, you are allowed to express those opinions without fearing being arrested for expressing them, but it still might cost you.

Having an opinion shouldn't cost you your job though. That's not a free society. That's a society where one group is blessed and the other cursed for an arbitrary belief system that's chic at the time.

People that actually embrace the principles such as loving one another that religious bigots like this athlete claim for themselves but don't embody are telling these people that they need to conform to a prevailing social standard if they wish to engage society. They don't need to think any particular way, but if they choose to express those thoughts or act on them, there may be social consequences.

My father was a bigot, and my mother a social justice warrior. How they got together remains a mystery. My father had the greater influence on me initially, and as a teenager, I was making racist and bigoted comments to my friends in school, who were mostly raised in liberal households (it was the late 60's in Southern California).

These people let me know in no uncertain terms that my expressed conservative opinions were hateful, and that they disapproved of my voicing them - pretty much what you are describing here. That pressure affected my behaviour immediately, and my beliefs eventually. It was a constructive social pressure, and I approve of it being used wherever helpful.

It shouldn't be social pressure that makes you change your beliefs; it should be your own internal machinations, thoughts, opinions, reasoning and morality. Other people believe what other people believe. You believe what you believe. Social pressure is tantamount to forcing beliefs on others just because theirs are in fashion at that time and yours aren't. That's not cool.

Actually, they do get to do that if they do so legally. Some groups need to be opposed. Think Charlottesville and the bigots with tiki torches marching. Those people hate you and me, you for your faith and me for my lack of it and for being politically liberal, and it's alright with me if they are subjected to some blow-back.

We should still allow them to express their opinions.

 

[David1967]

What do you think about his sacking?

Was he using the Rugby field that he was being paid to play Rugby on as a platform for this statement? If so that would be a problem. He is getting paid to play Rugby not push his religious views. However if his views were expressed on his own time on his own social media page, I don't see it as any of their business. IMO this is sort of like the whole "take a knee" debacle our super wealthy yet oppressed NFL players do over here. A matter of where it's done.

 

[Enoch07]

So you're okay with him being fired, then? Your earlier posts suggested you weren't.

Post #74 for my answer.

 

[Shad]

How silly for businesses or organizations for not wanting to be associated with bigoted or any other sort of embarrassing public display.

The organization didn't care before as it had no checks to filter him out prior to employment. More so this shows how politics has infested everything. I watch sports to get away from politics. Instead I get a purity agenda in which people must remain silent or only support views the organization "supports". Also do not forget the organization tried to change his view via a meeting.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Basically what you have is a slave here who is not allowed to have his religion and hold this job at the same time.

Of coursehe's allowed to have his religion. He's free to believe what he likes, to worship the god of his choice and observe the rituals of his religion, to study whichever holy book he chooses, to pray, and to commune with like minded people. None of that was forbidden by the league, and his punishment didn't reflect that the league objected to any of those things.

The remainder of society is entitled to decide collectively what opinions are inappropriate, what constitutes hate speech, and how to deal with it legally according to the sum of each member's values and what they consider unacceptable behavior.

The league is trying to extinguish his faith from the public sphere by pressuring those sports figures that they have influence with to be silent about it.

The league is exercising its lawful right to enforce the contract that spelled out what was expected from him in return for his compensation. He broke the contract and the league exercised its right to withdraw from its terms. The league is entitled to exert whatever pressure it can in its own interests as long as they don't break the law in so doing.

I appreciate the league opposing the expression of hateful, bigoted opinions.

It doesn't matter if his contract says they own him its still unethical.

Disagree. There is nothing unethical about the terms of the athlete's employment. He wasn't forced to sign them, nor was forced to break them.

They want him to work for them on condition that he give up his religion.

Disagree again. They simply don't want him announcing the hateful things that his religion teaches him as long as he works for the league. They think it reflects badly on the sport, and are eager to show the world that their sport rejects his values.

Suppose he wants to go fishing, but the league doesn't like the imagery of their player doing that. Do they get to tell him not to fish?

Yes. And he gets to agree to it or walk away and seek employment elsewhere. And if he takes the job, agrees to its terms, fishes anyway, and they catch him, they can fire him.

What part of that seems unfair?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So essentially you still agree that social media and other platforms have the right only to allow people to express beliefs and opinions that represent the majority/what the company believes?

How about this one, Religious Forums? It's terms of service tell you what behaviors will not be tolerated, from which you can infer what they believe. If you want to participate here, you have to agree to those terms. I have had to censor myself repeatedly on this site for that reason, and I agree to do just that. If I change my mind, I am free to leave, or to violate the terms and be thrown out.

Does RF "have the right only to allow people to express beliefs and opinions that represent the majority/what the company believes"? I'd say so. This brouhaha over the athlete is essentially the same thing - a group of people deciding what language will be tolerated and what won't and informing others of those terms before they choose to participate. You apparently see the two as fundamentally different in a way that justifies RF's terms of service for joining their website, but not the Australian Rugby officials' terms of service for joining their league.

And that employers can sack you for not sharing their beliefs and/or other socially acceptable beliefs?

This athlete was not fired for holding any belief. He was fired for expressing provocative and offensive beliefs publicly in a way that violated the terms of his employment and, in the estimation of those deciding the matter, would damage the reputation of the league had it not taken decisive action.

So what exactly are people with his type of beliefs supposed to do? In your scheme they basically just shut up and pretend they don't exist. So they just get to be erased.

How does censoring yourself from expressing beliefs that would be damaging to yourself or hurtful to others cause one to be erased? I hold some opinions that I only express to a very few people. I'm not ashamed of these opinions, but I have no need to express them just because I hold them, especially if the words are likely to incite undesirable reactions to them.

So yeah, on some matters, just shut up and keep certain opinions to yourself, or face the consequences. That's just how it is.

Having an opinion shouldn't cost you your job though.

Expressing that opinion in violation of the terms you agreed to and are paid to adhere to is grounds for termination.

Social pressure is tantamount to forcing beliefs on others just because they're in fashion at that time and yours aren't.

Nobody can force a belief on you. In my case growing up, I learned from my peers what the social consequences of my bigoted language would be, and modified my behavior accordingly to maintain those relationships. My beliefs change later simply because I grew older and evolved morally.

We should still allow them to express their opinions.

They can. Sometimes, there will a price to pay for expressing them, but those willing to pay it are free to express any opinion not considered a crime.

 

[SomeRandom]

So does anyone have any information on what kind of contract he signed? Did it include a clause about his behavior off the field on his own time? Did it bring no such things up? What sort of policies does the organization have that might be problematic for such a statement?
At the very minimum, it's very rude and disrespectful to many of his team mates and other rugby players, who come from a variety of religions, sexual orientations, and so on. Does he harp on about "Jesus saves" when the All Blacks present their haka to his team?

It’s quite common for sports players to face consequences for social media “faux pas” due to their accounts being open to the public. Or being unruly drunks. Sometimes even racist conduct on field. Of course it’s normally just “lad behaviour” or something said in the heat of the moment. So it usually ends with some press apology and a slap on the wrist. Racism and more recently homophobia are, at least publicly, condemned by most if not all codes of football these days.
And all codes have a mutually understood code of conduct, on and off field. So this could very well be considered a breach of contract.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Although I belong to a faith that has conservative values in regards both marriage and sex, I believe people who identify as gay or couples who are unmarried should be treated with the same kindness and respect as everyone else. I personally found Israel Folau’s comments deeply offensive. Furthermore it could easily become adherents of religions other than his type of Christianity who are going to hell. We used to tolerate racism and misogyny under the banner of free speech. I really appreciate those who challenge the promotion of hatred and bigotry under the guise of free speech.

Australia is my neighbouring country. I know Australian rugby has worked hard to change its image. Their reputation has often been tarnished at times by the excesses of macho culture including sexual assaults and people who are different getting beaten up. I for one applaud Australian Rugby’s courageous decision and have no sympathy for Israel Folau.

 

[Enoch07]

I'm good with that. As I mentioned above when discussing Judie at bridge, I have opinions that I never express because of that fact, and that is fine.

Understandable, I think any honest person would admit to the same. I am guilty as well.

But it is not healthy. People being forced to bottle up their opinions and not be allowed to express them, will have more negative consequences in the long run than if they was allowed to voice that opinion initially.

 

[Shad]

IMO this is sort of like the whole "take a knee" debacle our super wealthy yet oppressed NFL players do over here. A matter of where it's done.

Kneeling was done during work in the uniform of the team in the stadium of the team (or opposition) in front of the sport's audience. Kap wasn't kneeling outside a police station on his own time

 

[Shad]

The league is exercising its lawful right to enforce the contract that spelled out what was expected from him in return for his compensation. He broke the contract and the league exercised its right to withdraw from its terms. The league is entitled to exert whatever pressure it can in its own interests as long as they don't break the law in so doing.

Link the contract. Otherwise all you are doing is repeating what the league claims not the actual policy in question

 

[Subduction Zone]

" 'Israel Folau fails the NRL's inclusiveness culture, which is a policy strongly supported by the Australian Rugby League Commission (ARLC),' " said ARLC chairman Peter Beattie.

They should require him to be polite when he is working, but they shouldn't be telling him what to think.

He can think what he wants, he may not be able make those thought public. Many businesses have such policies and they are perfectly legal. And this is a policy of the National Rugby League of Australia that has been in the public record for some time. They did not just cook it up to punish Folau. From their website:

"These are our core Values.

We are Inclusive
We are driven by: engaging and empowering everyone to feel welcome in our game; reaching out to new participants and supporters; promoting equality of opportunity in all its forms; respecting and celebrating diversity in culture, gender, sexuality and social background."

About Us

Many businesses with a strong public exposure have various morality clauses in their contracts. A TV personality that got caught in an affair, though not an illegal activity, could be fired for that since his public actions make his employer look bad by association. He has no moral or legal complaint.

 

[SomeRandom]

There is a page not written by me entitled 8 Signs You're a Slave Instead of an Employee. Three of the eight signs are: You're Terrified of Your Bosses, The Workplace Exhibits Cultlike Conditions and They Engage in Scheduling Abuse. The League exhibits these three. (College sports exhibit two more which are: Vacation Time is Discouraged and You Work as an Intern.)

Basically what you have is a slave here who is not allowed to have his religion and hold this job at the same time. The league is trying to extinguish his faith from the public sphere by pressuring those sports figures that they have influence with to be silent about it. It doesn't matter if his contract says they own him its still unethical. They want him to work for them on condition that he give up his religion. They're a cult employer beating their employees into agreement, and that is not uncommon for sports leagues around the world. Sure while he's playing or practicing he should do his job, but when he's not at work his time should be his and without fear of reprisal for his personal choices. Suppose he wants to go fishing, but the league doesn't like the imagery of their player doing that. Do they get to tell him not to fish? That's not right. They're his employer, and they have certain responsibilities not to try to take ownership over him.

The League didn’t force Israel to join them. It didn’t point a gun at his head and tell him to sign a contract.
It didn’t force him to play their code. It compensated him greatly, monetarily, for his talent.
I would be highly surprised if his contract didn’t specifically state that posting hateful messages is a violation of code of conduct. Practically every organisation in the workforce today has some sort of “rules” for social media and internet communication. It’s a fact of life these days. It’s probably more strict for high profile celebrities like say sports players?

If Israel was recorded saying this privately, then I doubt he’d be facing the sack. Perhaps a warning to be more aware of potential media leaks where he goes in the future. A public insignificant fine, to save face. But he didn’t. He very stupidly posted this on a very public sphere. That’s dumb for even retail workers to do. Granted it won’t cost them their job to do so. Maybe a warning to private those types of sentiments in the future. But the higher the profile, the greater the public scrutiny. That’s just reality. Celebrities lose public endorsements, sponsors and even jobs all the time for saying something which the public greatly dislikes. So I’m not really seeing the problem here. Course it’s not like Israel will go hungry. Like I said, the league compensated him greatly for his talent. Perhaps he’ll go to another code or an overseas team. Though I think New Zealand might still be too traumatised to publicly endorse anything remotely resembling hate speech right now. Which is another facet of this to take into consideration.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No we don't. Social media is exactly that - for sharing opinions, not for having socially acceptable opinions that most people happen to agree with. If social media were only for socially acceptable opinions, there'd be absolutely no point to it. He, too, has the right to a platform. As long as it is just words and not actions, it's in his head.

He is free to post as he wishes. He is not free form consequences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Link the contract. Otherwise all you are doing is repeating what the league claims not the actual policy in question

The contract may not be public. They often aren't. But here are some examples of typical morality clauses:

Morals Clause Sample Clauses

With all of the money in the sport if his firing was not based upon something in his contract he would almost certainly sue. The lack of a lawsuit, and please note he is not only banned by his present team but by all the teams in the league, should tell you something.

 

[Augustus]

He can think what he wants, he may not be able make those thought public. Many businesses have such policies and they are perfectly legal. And this is a policy of the National Rugby League of Australia that has been in the public record for some time. They did not just cook it up to punish Folau.

His employer isn't actually the NRL, it is Rugby Australia which is ultimately in charge of all amateur and professional Rugby Union from school kids to the national side. It's not a business, but the administrator of an entire sport.

NRL (Rugby League), is a league in a different sport who said they wouldn't take him.