There are so many layers to the Folau saga, which took another turn at a Fair Work conciliation on Friday.

But you could imagine my surprise when I heard colleague Steve sympathise with millionaire Folau. Why is that, Steve?

Steve Evans: Firstly, Chris, let me correct you! I am not a Folau supporter (except from the touchline of a rugby field). I think his assertion that gays will go to hell is stupid and repugnant. It's completely clear to me that it won't happen. I do not fear for the eternal future of my gay friends.

But what I do mistrust is the way there's been a pile-on. People - commentators of all sorts - are queuing up to give him the kind of kicking he never had at the bottom of a ruck. He has views which are repugnant to many people, particularly those in the better heeled and trendier parts of the our cities. But there are swathes of people, particularly I suspect in country Australia who have some sympathy. And I don't like it when the views of ordinary people are declared out of bounds.

READ MORE: Israel Folau has it wrong, but don't gag him

Chris Dutton: Well I'm glad we cleared up the supporter part. As for the pile-on, I find it hard to feel sorry for someone who blatantly went against a request from his employer and was subsequently punished for his actions. But when people say his right to religion is being attacked, it isn't. When he agreed to a near $5 million contract he agreed to the terms and conditions of his employer. They gave him one warning, but he didn't listen.

SE: If you or I said stupid, offensive things on social media, we'd be marched out of the building by noon. But I think that this row isn't really about that. If it was just a contractual dispute, it would have stayed on the back pages.

It's moved to the front page because it's really about something else. I am very friendly with an Anglican vicar in a small town in northern NSW who feels that the Christian viewpoint is being pushed to the side-lines.

Israel Folau has a very extreme, literal Christian viewpoint but it is a widespread view. The Australian Bureau of Statistics tells me after my Google trawl that 52 per cent of Australians identify themselves as Christians.

CD: So what exactly are you saying is OK about the Folau situation? The people arguing it's discrimination against Christians are neglecting the discrimination against the LGBTQ community. Isn't that ironic? Saying: "don't discriminate against us so we can discriminate against others."

SE: Chris! Chris! You sound like I'm convincing you. I just don't like it when a group tries to close down thought. I didn't like it when there was a pile-on after Germaine Greer was misreported as saying she wanted to reduce sentences for rape - a reading of what she said showed that she actually wanted to increase them in some cases. And I don't like it when a Twitter mob turns on a rugby player who may or may not be one of the great intellects of our time. This Twitter lynch mob mentality needs to be resisted.

Is there any speech which should be banned? I think if Folau had denied the Holocaust, for example, I'd feel strongly about it. Or if he had made a deeply sexist remark about women or a deeply racist remark - or even a deeply, overt anti-gay remark. Something stupid, viscous and utterly bigoted.

But I don't think he did that. He was quoting what he believes the Bible teaches. He's definitely wrong in my eyes, and he is in the yes of many, many Christians. There is a distinction to be made: if a born-again Christian says that Jews, Muslims and other non-believers are destined to go to hell, that is a belief - but not to my my mind anti-Semitic or Islamophobic. The answer is to argue with that belief but not to pile-on. When lynch mobs, witch-hunters and their modern day equivalents the Twitter warriors and trollers - triumph, we all lose.

The issue isn't clear. There are clearly things that can't be said by a public figure - even one who is "only" a sports star. Vicious, open bigotry ought to be sackable. Folau's unwise and inept social media statements weren't quite that. They were a statement of a hard-line Christian belief shared by many Australians.

MORE SPORT

I think he's wrong and will upset many people - but being upset is part of democracy. We should all be a bit more hard-skinned. I've been insulted as a Welshman - sheep-shagger, Taffy was a Thief, etc. But I live with it. I know gay people have suffered real and even fatal discrimination so they are right to be sensitive. But we shouldn't either over-react to the religious musings of a mere sportsman.

CD: I agree with the social media pile-on. Too often these days people face a trial by social media, which makes their actions worse than they actually were. It's frustrating and I am guilty of joining in on some occasions. But what about ^th e pile-on to Rugby Australia? Because what you're saying everyone has done to Folau is actually happening to Rugby Australia. They didn't sack him for his religious views. They sacked him for breaching the code of conduct, which Israel signed. Let me just reiterate that: Israel signed it. To make millions of dollars.

Also, it's easy to say that we should be more hard-skinned. But I think that's unfair on the people who are actually affected. You or I might be able to brush it off, but someone coming to grips with their sexuality might be deeply affected. They are the people who need protection, not Israel Folau

SE: You're right there. If he has a clause in his contract forbidding him from expressing opinions, then he's a fool to break it. But this appeared in our very own paper in February: "Wallabies star David Pocock stood on the lawns of Parliament House with fellow Adani coal mine protesters in the days leading up to the Super Rugby season-opener."

Personally, I don't take the views of sports stars any more seriously than I take the view of anyone else - which is to say: seriously but not as gospel. Rugby Australia could have just taken the view that Israel is a man of strong belief. We all know what it is. Agree or disagree. But they didn't because they were afraid of a social media backlash. It was the kind of timidity which would get a player demolished on the field of play.

CD: Mate. Did we just go to the David Pocock v Israel Folau debate? We'll be here for hours more if that's the path we're taking. My view is that Pocock shouldn't be dragged into this at all, despite him having his own social beliefs. I believe it's a cheap cop-out from the Folau supporters. To address it quickly: Yes, Pocock did attend a protest. Did he attack a vulnerable section of society and claim them as his beliefs? No.

The thing about his contract as well was that it didn't forbid him from expressing his views. Instead, it said he is free to express his views, but do it in a respectful way. To say Rugby Australia tried to stop his opinions is wrong. They just asked he be respectful.

Rugby Australia's case wasn't about backlash. Here you had a player who was asked not to do something by his employer. He did it. He was sacked. Play on. The way his coach and teammates have rebuked his actions suggest it was about more than social media or the right to free speech. It was a player who went rogue and lost the support of his teammates.

READ MORE: 'This is bigger than Israel Folau': Rugby Australia chair opens fire

SE: Well, I'm dragging him in. If I was Israel Folau's lawyer, I would, too. If a great Wallabies flanker can express controversial opinions very publicly, why can't a great Wallabies winger and full-back? The fact that he can't clearly shows that the fuss isn't about the contract. Both players presumably have similar clauses about public speech.

It's about what Israel Folau said - and, as I argued earlier, it wasn't so offensive as to be bannable. This is not an exact science, of course. It's a matter of judgement but in my view Israel's Instagram outbursts may have offended a lot of people but not grossly as out and out anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or virulent homophobic or misogynistic bigotry would. We all need to get outraged less often.

Social media thrives on outrage. We should get over it. By the way, a lot more people now know Folau's views because of the row. It would have been better if he'd been ignored.

CD: Oh, you went there! I was really hoping we didn't, because as I've written in the past I think Pocock gets unfairly dragged into these things. But I do understand the similarities and why people do so. Here's the key part that you've overlooked (it's OK, many have done the same): It's about sharing controversial opinions in a respectful way.

Pocock was arrested in 2014 after he chained himself to a tractor as part of an anti-coal mine protest. He was warned by Rugby Australia was found to have breached the code of conduct. He was warned about the consequence of breaching the code of conduct a second time, and he hasn't done so. Folau breached it once, then breached it again.

To be honest, I'm sick of hearing about Israel Folau and what he's done. I agree with you that we need to get over things. Sometimes it is best to ignore people instead of fanning the flame. But Folau is the one fanning the flame. He's the one who said he would quit rugby union if officials told him he was hurting the sport. Now he's fighting them?

I would love to ignore him. But he's the one trying to win $10 million for telling homosexuals they were going to hell.

SE: Wow. I think we agree, Chris: we've all heard quite enough about Israel Folau.