This is quite a good summary. No, its not pro Folau, but it seems balanced. 

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/massive-win-for-under-siege-castle-but-tough-questions-remain-20190518-p51op6.html

Key points are:

At the absolute core of this argument were two things.

First, that Folau knew of the consequences of his actions, despite the odd claim by Nick Farr-Jones that he was never given clear boundaries as to what he could and couldn't post. The tribunal clearly found in favour of Rugby Australia here, particularly Castle's submission that she had "multiple" conversations with Folau or his manager and that he had acknowledged the hurt caused by last year's post.

Second, that Rugby Australia wasn't denying Folau freedom of religion.

The killer line from Castle on Friday was: "We have many players that quote the Bible on their social media platforms, as Mr Folau did for the first nine months of his new contract."

I hope he appeals, as while some feel he is hard done by, and while the 3 person panel are exceptionally qualified, maybe this case needs to go fully through the legal system so that its fully put to bed, rather than simmering away with "what if he did appeal?"