Free speech has been trashed by homosexuals. Great step forward....Not!

There is too much emphasis on free speech:

Freedom is about the ability to actually live in your own way on your own premises, rather than the ability to scream as much as you like in public space because nobody would be listening anyway.

There is nothing wrong about regulating public space and making is safe and hassle-free for everyone, so long as you can do whatever you want in private.

Qantas thinks it can dictate to other organisations now, does it?. Qantas can tell its staff what to do and what to think? A rugby player is asked a straight question, but he is supposed to give a crooked answer: lie in other words? And, homosexually inspired Qantas is threatening to deny sponsorship to rugby. What was that about big business joining big government in the totalitarian control of the masses?

I will be withdrawing my sponsorship from Qantas - there are plenty of other airlines and, if the sudden dive amid dangling oxygen masks the other day is any indication, Qantas won't be able to claim its great safety record much longer.

QANTAS and it's somewhat 'odd' Irish CEO who by happenstance, leads the Homosexual Airline of the world! Can go to Cork or somewhere. There's always been something about that bloke that pushes my buttons, as such I always avoid Qantas whenever possible.

It's their money and they can do what they like with it. I'm surprised at all you Tories who are so eager to abandon this basic principle of capitalism.

Sure, they can put their money where they like, and so can passengers. This comment comes from someone who doesn't know anything about business, where it is a very foolish idea to insult customers and tell them what they should be thinking. As I said, there are plenty of other airlines who are not pushing homosexuality on their clients, and people don't fly Qantas these just because it's Austryan these days. Particularly he ones who can't pronounce Australian, and who are looking for a good deal.

Toni,

So you would be happy to see a baker refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

The bloke is good at catching a ball and running. That's his sole claim to fame.

I care as much about his views on the fate of homosexuals in the after-life as I care about his views on the nature of Dark Matter.

That others have the right to use their economic power to suppress his views is clear.

That they feel the need to do so, suggests that they fear that such views have more resonance in the public than they are comfortable with.

The reason for the corporate view is the fact that people vote with their wallets.XXX Falou is entitled to any view he likes, as long as it's factual and causes no harm to others! One cannot, because some chicken scratchings in some book says so, own their own facts. XXX Simply put, what you're liable to read in the Bible, ain't necessarily so. XXX People need to own their own behaviour, some of which includes ignoring scientifically gathered medical evidence. XXX If religious folk believe we are the creation of a higher being and difference, skin colour and genetically acquired sexual aberrations are the Creator's handiwork. Then people who repeat and promulgate false witness as Falou has done will be judged by the ultimate judge, on their day of judgement. XXX In any event, we've had the SSM debate and the people have spoken. Remember it was not all that long ago that the Mormons practised and promoted polygamy. Refused to ordain negroes, because their prophet declared, they had the mark of Cain on them. XXX However, due to overwhelming hostile public opinion response, recanted that medieval view and a few other false witness promulgations. XXX Let Falou repeat his publically aired views once an election is called. And let's see how many conservative candidates defend his right to his errant position? XXX Alan B.

Critics fail to think about the meaning and purpose of commercial sponsorship. It is a marketing opportunity to create a position of goodwill by giving financial support to an organisation in return for a beneficial advertising association. It does not confer any form of management over the business affairs of that sponsored organisation other than to take care that the recipient does not act ion a manner to bring market disapproval to the sponsor. Sponsorship does not have to be exclusive, and a number of advertisers may share in the creation of marketing goodwill, just as advertisers share media space with others, who may be competitors. The main issue in this entire "wrong comment' furore is whether the offender was expressing a purely personal attitude, or else purporting to speak on behalf of his organisation.

Yuyutsu

*…There is nothing wrong about regulating public space and making is safe and hassle-free for everyone, so long as you can do *whatever* you want in private…*

It appears you are 110% behind suppression of (free) speech in public since, it may offend someone.

So if homosexuals are fiddling with little boys at home behind the curtains, that's OK, since it's in the privacy of their own premises, and there they may do *whatever* they wish?

I think you need to rethink both of those misguided theories.

Great article, no bias, no bs.

Folau refers to a text that includes:

"... the sexually immoral, ... idolaters, ... adulterers, .... men who practice homosexuality, ... thieves, ... the greedy, ... drunkards, ... revilers, ... swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Sounds like Parliament house, if you ask me. But really, my first thought is "all have sinned......."

You don't see the nation's publicans calling for a boycott, nor the stockbrokers, lawyers or financial advisers, neither are the Hindus and Buddhists up in arms.

Why is it that the gays get to have all the self-righteous outrage?

As much as I will (and have publicly) stand up for the rights of all people including homosexuals, I'm getting heartily sick of their persecution of Christians.

To wit, if Alan Joyce had the courage of his convictions, he'd stop serving Halal meals on Qantas.

Best wishes to all, including the drunkards, sexually immoral, swindlers, greedy etc etc etc etc

PS : I put myself down as an "etc." :-)

Dear Dan,

«It appears you are 110% behind suppression of (free) speech in public since, it may offend someone.»

The public MAY restrict speech on its premises for the sake of peace, just as you MAY restrict speech in your own home. Whether and to what extent the public actually exercises this option, is subject to the public's constitution, in our case to the democratic decision-making process: since there is nothing immoral about either doing so or not, I am personally open to all possibilities in this regard.

One related concern, however, is the definition of "public".
The premises of private businesses for example are not public and no land automatically belongs to the public just because it is not owned by any private person.

Now in private:

«So if homosexuals are fiddling with little boys at home behind the curtains, that's OK, since it's in the privacy of their own premises, and there they may do *whatever* they wish?»

Obviously this it NOT OK, nor is it a good idea because those who do so WILL experience hell as a result. My point was that the state has no right to intervene, but God certainly will (as a manner of speech - it's a bit more complex, but that's the spirit of things to say so in 3 words without too much theology).

Diver Dan writes: "So if homosexuals are fiddling with little boys at home behind the curtains, that's OK, since it's in the privacy of their own premises, and there they may do *whatever* they wish?"

The blind knee-jerk bigotry that conflates homosexuality with hebephilia seems to be alive and well when given an opportunity for expression.

It is to be hoped that the great majority of people realise this, but it needs to be repeated sometimes.......Pedophilia is not a function of homosexuality and neither is the reverse true. This is the hard and fast rule, or was the last time I had occasion to refer to this issue

However tasteless or distasteful, Israel Folau has an undeniable right to express a religious opinion in public.

Some people earn a good living from the practice.

It also follows with elegant inevitability that in allowing for this we do not guarantee immunity from criticism in response. When taken legitimately as a provocation, it would be equally offensive to deny a reply.

In that spirit, I will observe that Folau has made a conscious decision to dedicate his life and mind to a phantom, a wraith, a fist full of Phlogiston. That any man should surrender his intellect to the service of a ghost diminishes him.

Though his motives may be pure, it is the groveling surrender that offends.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."- attributed to Francois-Marie Arouet [Voltaire] 1694-1778

Perhaps Folau's "choice" is that same physical phenomenon that predisposes one to homosexuality. It would be unbearably ironic if it were.

It seems that the bloke was asked his opinion and he gave a straight answer (NPI), if this is unacceptable then why was the question asked?

As another poster said, was the answer supposed to be a lie so that the creepy-feelies would not be offended?

Is it now the norm, in Australia, to lie if asked a possibly controversial question?

I haven't travelled QANTAS for years as, frankly, their attitude and service stinks.

Corporate and other sponsors can give and take away sponsorship according to their wishes.

Most if not all corporates have to promote mission and values with the latter reflecting most stakeholders including shareholders, management, personnel, customers, suppliers etc.

One may disagree with a sponsor withdrawing sponsorship but it's their call in democracy and free market to support their own interests.