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.