This confused nonsense, is from the pen of a university product of our times, unable to recognise the consequences of "forced thinking" imposed on us with radical consequences such as with Folau.

It's a dominating madness with little logic. To excuse the imposition of a culture of gay abandon, BDSM festivals, gay Mardi Gras, usurpation of political power, by a godless twisted queer radical and dangerous political organisation, and present this alternative as a positive step forwards for society, then this author is actually a clown.

Dan

It does matter what was said, who said it and who was offended! It is fine for any radicalised cult member to hold any and as many radical ideas as he or she likes. But does not have an automatic right to radicalise others with his or her brainwashed from birth indoctrination. But particularly if that indoctrination is mostly passed on generational bull sh!te!

Moreover, the speaker in question was under a contractual obligation to keep his radical views to himself or out of the public area. Just as gay people are required when in the employ of this or that (don't ask don't tell) religious organisation.

Holding fast to any belief or assumption, the actual case, is not the problem. Just giving public voice to it when all the available irrefutable scientific and medical evidence says he and most of the religions that share this medieval brainwashed from birth view are wrong wrong wrong!

And tantamount to requiring a left-handed person to turn himself or herself into a right-handed person regardless of the fact they were born left-handed.
Alan B.

I'm confused too. The High Court has found that there is an implied right to freedom of speech in our Constitution. Would that not make any restrictive "workplace agreement" unconstitutional and thus invalid?

And on what basis do the idiots who are trying to damage Folau think they have any right to dictate beliefs, speech and behaviour to the other 98 per cent of the population? Who put them in charge of the country?

With his history of studying & teaching will o the wisp, pretend subjects, could you even hope for something & perhaps meaningful from him?

It's not what Folau said that matters - it's the fact that he said it in his role as a prestigious football player with all the influence which that commands.
His error was in being perceived as speaking for an employer with whom he had an undertaking not to speak publicly on matters which could be within the purview of that employer.
He has an undisputed right to express his own beliefs but not with the implied endorsement of his employer.

Hi Ponder,

" ..... he had an undertaking not to speak publicly on matters which could be within the purview of that employer."

So lessons from the bible are 'within the purview of that employer' ? They go to the heart of Australian rugby ? How's that ?

As an atheist, I don't believe in hell or heaven, and I'd be surprised how many homosexuals do either. Maybe I'm wrong, and there are very many who feel dreadfully hurt by Folau's reminding them of what it actually says in their book. I would advise them respectfully to - if vou'll excuse the pun - suck it up.

As a straight, I'm offended by the notion of sodomy (but I'm aware that sodomy is not the only method for male homosexuals to achieve satisfaction). But that's their right. They also have the right to prance about in parades and promote sodomy etc., if they wish. Their rights to freedom of expression outweighs my right not to be offended. Fair enough.

Cheers,

Joe