The Future of Political Correctness

Gbear

In the case of the recent trial of Paddy Jackson, or in another rugby-related event, the recent statements of homophobic religious beliefs from the Australian rugby international Israel Folau, we have seen a huge backlash in society against people for actions they have taken or beliefs they hold in a personal capacity.
Craig Gilroy is perhaps a clearer example than Jackson himself, or Stuart Olding, because the spectre of the trial doesn't overshadow him directly, but he has also been sanctioned.

In an intersting twist, it seems unlikely that Folau will face any action, because we have made arbitrary distinctions in what descrimination is permitted and his beliefs are part of his Christian religion, and as such they fall within the protected class of religious belief and can't, as far as I know, be used as grounds for disciplinary action. If he'd said something equally offensive independant of his religious belief, there'd be no question about him being removed.

This is, of course, Political Correctness. It's the coming to light of personal opinions or actions that society look unfavourably upon.
That, however, is nothing new. If this was the 50's, and a famous person was found to be gay, they might face a similar backlash and lose their prominent position in society. If they were recorded saying Christianity is a load of bollocks, something similar might have happened.

So, how ought we handle this as a society?

Do we accept the imposition on individuals of social norms, and that they can be ostracised from society if they don't conform? Can we be confident enough that society is becoming more moral and will always do so, and as such we must always bow to its pressure?

Or, do we need to come to terms with a more pluralistic society where people will do or say things that others find repulsive, and strive to carry on in the face of that. If society becomes less homogeneous can we maintain this sort of approach? For example, there might be large splits along idealogical lines regarding social policies, like euthanasia, animal welfare and veganism, human cloning, or, as we see in modern times, splits between native populations and immigrants with vastly different outlooks on reality.

Or does it not matter what we do, because the largest cohorts of society will determine what is and isn't permissable and there's no way to stop widespread denunciations and threats from sponsors or HR departments?

Note that I'm not commenting on the validity or morality of specific cases, but rather how society does and should react to them, if at all.

My own view probably comes through in the tone of this post, but it's a tricky question, and I'd like to see what others have to say about it.