Peter Singer is an high church atheist. He is transgressive, believes in the power of reason, no higher power and is an ethicist frequently cited by the progressive to advance their agenda. He's also defending Folau, noting that his beliefs are Christian Orthodoxy, and (regardless of what he thinks about them -- he spends quite a bit of time in the article saying he is not a Christian and does not believe in any God) if you regulate this, then any speech can be regulated.
The fact I am quoting him makes me wonder about the gates of hell and if the fire there is getting cold. If the woke have lost Singer, who is normally their ally, then they have lost indeed.
If Rugby Australia had existed in the first century of the Christian era, and Paul had had enough talent to be a contracted player, Rugby Australia would presumably have ripped up his contract once his letter to the Corinthians became public. That makes it quite bizarre that Castle should have justified Folau’s dismissal by saying, “People need to feel safe and welcomed in our game regardless of their gender, race, background, religion, or sexuality.” Did she mean that you can feel welcomed in rugby, regardless of your religious beliefs, as long as you don’t express them in public? That looks a lot like telling homosexuals that they can do what they want in the privacy of their bedroom, but they must not show their affection in public because some people might find it offensive.Peter Singer.
As this example shows – and as John Stuart Mill argued in his classic On Liberty – once we allow, as a ground for restricting someone’s freedom of speech or action, the claim that someone else has been offended by it, freedom is in grave danger of disappearing entirely. After all, it is very difficult to say anything significant to which no one could possibly take offense. Mill had in mind restrictions imposed by the state, but when employers dismiss employees who make controversial utterances, that is also a threat to freedom of expression – especially when the employer has a monopoly on the employment of workers with special skills, as Rugby Australia does.
As of this afternoon, the fund is at 1.8 million. It appears that those who have considered such, including a previous Australian Human Rights Commissioner, are starting to support Folau. This is not stopping people complaining to the Australian Charities Commission about the Australian Christian Lobby, who are hosting the fundraiser.
The renewed support for Folau comes as Gillian Triggs, the former Australian Human Rights Commission president, said she believed it was important to protect the rugby union star's right to freedom of speech.Stuff (NZ).
"I don't think employers should have that power [to sack someone] and I don't think that one should lose one's job for putting a view in good faith that you have put, particularly as a reflection that could be a religious view," said Ms Triggs on ABC News.
"It is a very wide view. It encompasses a lot of us - we're all going to go to hell. I think it is really foolish and disproportionate to prevent him from preaching something that I think he probably believes quite deeply as a matter of religious expression."
The current habit of banning speech you don't like is starting to bite back, but it used to work, and the woke take a long time to learn new tactics.
I am not a great fan of social media, and I haven't joined Parler. What we are seeing is that corporations are running scared of any place people can speak freely. When alternatives start, they are trying to shut them down. Gab, for instance, has to run from a browser because it is not allowed in the apple or android app store. The new thing is to deny funding. Again, this is a form of censorship. The war was spiritual. It is now corporate and economic.
The Corporates are going to lose on this one. Expect the story to fade to the sports page, and there to be a quiet arbitration. I don't need sports. There are alternatives to banks.
For these fools cannot tolerate those who are not like them.