I was wrong in thinking that Kerry-Ann Kennerley was a cut above the average median hack, but she has asked why out of the thousands and thousands of quotes in the Bible, why was one 'targeting a a certain section of society' used?.

Duh! Because it pertained to what he wanted to say. What other passage could be quoted that suited the subject?

Then she said it isn't Christian.

Duh again. The Bible isn't Christian?

I'm glad Folau and his homophobic cohort have so much to say and defend as their right to free speech. Because it reminds us, what we are now voting for!

And we need to remind our friend to remind their friends and all their wider circle of friends that SSM is still being argued against as if your gender bias was something a gay person could choose. And all in the name of so-called free speech

Just as a homosexual Alan Jones would it seems, conclude, given how quickly this shock jock raced in to defend the right of folk like Folau to continue to persecute a minority. Reportedly caught with his allegorical pants down on a dirty weekend with a male friend?

As for the other sinners, has he missed any one of us? At the end of life, we will be judged on our actions and words and all that flowed from them as consequential!

Please keep rattling your cages you are assisting a labour landslide!?
Alan B.

runner: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"!

Must be wonderful to be so perfect and never ever wrong! You surely must be the master reincarnated?

Waiting here for you and your (speaking for God) cohort to walk on water and perform a few miracles!

You'll have a nice day now y'hear.
Alan B.

Hi Alan,

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Well, yeah, isn't that part of the issue ? That (and I'm writing as an atheist) nobody is perfect, some of us are drunkards, fornicators, frauds, thieves, and so on, and yet we're all human ? That, for some believers, we all do time in hell for our particular offences ? For being human ? i.e. who of us wants to cast the first stone ?

Not being a believer, this doesn't involve me except empathetically (and for his slant against drunks), but if some believers want to get all up-tight and think they might go to hell as a consequence of their actions, then I'd have to say that's their prerogative. I don't believe in a hell, so it all means bugger-all to me. I'm not so sure that all that many of the 'believers' really believe it either.

So for all those drunks and homosexuals etc. out there who might believe in a hell, I suggest they get real and suck it up: that's your lot (unless you come to atheism). This bloke is a 'true believer' and believes what his particular book says, and quotes it. I don't know how many people this might involve, but why should the rest of us give a toss ?

Joe

Such is the universal dominance of commodification, that sponsors now dictate contracts and free speech. As the Wallabies’ main sponsor, Qantas pressured Rugby Australia to take action against Folau. Qantas, led by chief executive Alan Joyce, who is openly gay, was at the forefront of campaigning for marriage equality during the 2017 plebiscite. Joyce has vowed the airline will continue to campaign on social issues.
Rugby Australia has attempted to dodge the fundamental principle of free speech by claiming that no one is denying Israel’s right to have a point of view. They’re not engaging in the freedom of speech debate, they defensively profess, “it’s a contractual public persona debate."

.

Dear Graham,

.

You wrote :

« The case of Folau - in which a young working-class man is victimised because his religious beliefs offend powerful corporate interests … »

That’s one way of looking at it I suppose, Graham, but one has to admit that Israel Folau is no ordinary “working-class man” by any means. He is an internationally renowned Australian rugby union player, the record holder for most tries scored in Super Rugby history, whose annual salary is reportedly in excess of $1 million – and has been for nearly ten years.

That’s more like the salary of a CEO than of “a young working-class man”.

Considering him to be “victimised because his religious beliefs offend” is also a question of perspective. While you see him as a victim, others see him as an offender. It’s a question of which takes precedence: his personal freedom of expression or his sexual discrimination of others – the former being a right, the second an infringement of the law (and the non-respect of a contractual engagement with his employer).

Stating that his religious beliefs offended “powerful corporate interests” would seem to be something of an understatement. The last time I checked, Izzy had 354,000 followers on Instagram where he posted his controversial meme. Presumably, those are just some of his admirers.

But now the meme has gone viral and I don’t know who hasn’t seen it, particularly among the LGBT community. Presumably, they do not consider he is being “victimised because his religious beliefs offend”, as you suggest. Nor do they probably enjoy anything like his level of fame or wage bracket, even though, as you say, he is only “a young working-class man”.

Your political survey of the controversy is interesting though I am a little wary of analyses that interpret declared sociological attitudes as necessarily determined by declared political preferences at a particular moment in time, within a particular political context.

I am not persuaded it is possible to generalise the sociological attitudes of individuals in terms of their declared left or right political orientations.

.