Woodsie,
I disagree with you. A lot was made about Izzy’s right to religious freedom, freedom of speech and his quoting from the bible “out of love” and his right to use his public profile to sermonise.
What did he really have to lose with going on with it? He’ll never play for RA again as he’s poison to sponsors, supporters and businesses seeking to be seen as incusive. He had a $2 million dollar fund backing him from the Christian lobby, and I’d hazard a guess that there’d be more available if needed. So, he wasn’t going to be out of pocket with his legal fees; so why settle?
He didn’t establish that he had the right to make statements, in his own time, that caused all this drama and angst, and that hurt his employers interests, real or perceived.
To me, yes he’s settled the dispute with his former employers and received an amount of money, both apologies, IMHO, were pretty weak, but he hasn’t stuck by his guns that he had the right to make those statements.
So yes, it was all about the money and understandably so as he’s got bills to pay like most of us, not his right to religious freedom or speech, whether he intentionally, or unintentionally, injured the feelings those offended by his quotes or the commercial interests of his employer.
I don’t agree with his statements but he had the right to make them as long as they complied with Australian law; which could be tested soon as a Gay rights advocate was reportedly going to try to have him prosecuted over those statements. I believe that if his true beliefs are as stated, then he should have defended through the Courts his right to make them and express his beliefs to the World.
I disagree with you. A lot was made about Izzy’s right to religious freedom, freedom of speech and his quoting from the bible “out of love” and his right to use his public profile to sermonise.
What did he really have to lose with going on with it? He’ll never play for RA again as he’s poison to sponsors, supporters and businesses seeking to be seen as incusive. He had a $2 million dollar fund backing him from the Christian lobby, and I’d hazard a guess that there’d be more available if needed. So, he wasn’t going to be out of pocket with his legal fees; so why settle?
He didn’t establish that he had the right to make statements, in his own time, that caused all this drama and angst, and that hurt his employers interests, real or perceived.
To me, yes he’s settled the dispute with his former employers and received an amount of money, both apologies, IMHO, were pretty weak, but he hasn’t stuck by his guns that he had the right to make those statements.
So yes, it was all about the money and understandably so as he’s got bills to pay like most of us, not his right to religious freedom or speech, whether he intentionally, or unintentionally, injured the feelings those offended by his quotes or the commercial interests of his employer.
I don’t agree with his statements but he had the right to make them as long as they complied with Australian law; which could be tested soon as a Gay rights advocate was reportedly going to try to have him prosecuted over those statements. I believe that if his true beliefs are as stated, then he should have defended through the Courts his right to make them and express his beliefs to the World.
.
