Oh, well that's OK then.
Just so long as you aren't one of those evil socialists who think they have a right to stop other people from expressing an opinion...

It is a sad day in Australia when large companies see fit to bully and blackmail to prevent offense to the minority of their consumers. I found nothing wrong with this article that has caused ANZ and BMI to withdraw funds. We are a great country because of freedom of speech. People are coming here in droves because of our freedom of expression and free rights. It is totally unaustralian for these two financial institutions to do this.
Our country was founded by Godly men who built Australia up from nothing and used the Word of God as a guide for morality. That is why we are so great. People can argue all they like about homosexual vs heterosexual, but it will never change the original rule book (Bible) that states "Man was to marry woman and procreate (have children)". Man and man can't do this and woman and woman can't do this. Aids is the result of their ungodly unions. God says that His Words will never change, for they are the same yesterday, today and forever.
Yes you may choose homosexual lifestyle over the norm, this is your free choice, but please don't try to teach us it is normal & ask us to accept it. Go Bill and Chris.

Killarney
I have no problem with private business owners directing their business’s commercial activities according moral choices, but I do object to employees of public companies using shareholders’ money to further their personal ideological agendas.

I suspect this is not what’s happened in the case of ANZ, however. More likely is that the decision was made to withdraw advertising because it was feared that the organisation would suffer reputational damage by association with site hosting an article propounding a controversial position.

I think this was poor judgement because:

a) most grownups can clearly tell that the site is not propounding an anti-gay stance itself but is explicitly committed to giving voice to all sides of the argument on controversial issues, of which this was but one example;

b) it appears this attack on OLO is being done collusively, as more than one company has withdrawn advertising; and

c) the principle of free speech, which is a foundational value of OLO, is so important that even bigots like Muehlenberg should be allowed a platform, not least so that we who disagree with him can articulate why he’s wrong.

By bowing to pressure and withdrawing advertising, with its clear agenda of shutting down a platform for a view some people find offensive, the ANZ is attacking the principle that even the Muehlenbergs of this world should not be denied a platform.

This leads to Cornflower’s very legitimate question – what can we do about it. What we can do is to make clear to ANZ that its judgement is wrong and that it will suffer more reputational damage by attacking free speech than through a tenuous association with Muehlenberg that no reasonable person would interpret as endorsement.

I’m an ANZ customer and have already lodged a protest at the site Briar Rose so helpfully posted. I urge others to do the same:

http://www.anz.com/common/forms/default.asp?intID=174

YHWH4ME last I heard it was not compusory.

What's normal?
Reading your post I'd say your attitude to faith is outside the norm's. I can accept your freedoms to think like that except where it start's to impose on the freedoms of others to believe differently. I hold some personal views about what you believe that I generally choose not to voice except when it comes to imposing your beliefs on others.

Oddly enough I've found very little need to spend much time and effort thinking about the sex lives of homosexuals (or the grossly obese etc). It all does not end up being much of an issue unless you choose it to be.

R0bert

Perhaps OLO should chat with organisastions like Westpac, for
some advertising revenue. Gail Kelly heads that show and as
an ex South African, she would know from experience, what it is
like when free speech is denied to people by Govt legislation.

It seems that once we have actually experienced the opposite,
we realise even more, the value of these freedoms which we Aussies
take for granted at times.

I love Online Opinion. I think it does a good job of allowing different points of view to reach an audience. I think people should be able to say what they think. I think people should able to say homosexuality is wrong. I think they should be able to say Catholicism is evil. I think those who are offended by speech should be able to answer, but not to suppress.

That said, this matter can hardly be boxed up as a simple question of freedom of speech. There is simply no sound basis in a free (capitalist) society for demanding that a firm should place its advertising with a particular vehicle if it doesn't want to do so.

OLO has been presented with a question of whether it is more important to maintain its reputation as a journal which is unafraid to publish a range of views, regardless of their popularity in particular spheres, or limit its content so as to better its chances of obtaining advertising revenue.

I also want to say to those (eg, the good people at LP) who carp about hate speech dressed up as free speech, some of the most vituperative comments I have seen are levelled at people with whom the commenters at LP disagree. There is some attempt at justification of that practice over there by saying that the hateful comments are reserved for people whose opinions they despise rather than those whose lifestyles abominate. Stalinists always did feel more at home with suppression of opinion than the rest of us.

Mr Storer implores that we remember that this is about Graham Young, not him. He took offence and then took action, so I think this is really about him. His view is that people shouldn't be able to say things with which he strongly disagrees or by he is offended. The thing is, the regimes of the twentieth century which took that proposition seriously were uniformly cruel to gays. He should take that into account in wishing for a brave new world where offensive ideas are criminalised.