"When will bigots quit bullying Margaret Court?"

Obviously, never. And the person least concerned about it, fine human being that she is, is Margaret Court herself. When interviewers keep reminding her of what lesser people say about her, she replies, 'so what?'.

Margaret Court is an example of how easy it is to ignore the taunts of thugs and bullies who think that calling you names is going to shut you up and make you go away. Don't worry about the lady; she is not worried about herself - she's to busy looking after people her need her help.

Same old story. If Court is free to express her biblical opinions, we heathens are free to roast her in return. She can't have it both ways.

Hilariously, her new gong is now portrayed as a blow for sexual equality. They're not the sharpest tools in the shed out at Yarralumla.

[Deleted for advocating violence]

Dear Spencer Gear,

Well that was a load of typical hard right sophistry as usual. Actually belay that, it was pretty crude attempt at a playground move we all knew in primary school. 'Get called a bigot? Well just call them a bigot and double down'.

Bloody hell mate you can be a yawn.

Court holds bigoted view which is fine, something she is allowed to do. She chose to stop flying Qantas because she deemed them supportive of same sex views, that is fine too.

But when someone hands back an award because the same awards team ensured Court had her current gong upgraded to Australia's highest you call it is wrong and a form of bigotry.

Bulldust.

It is not bigotry to simply call out bigotry. Court holds demonstrably bigoted views and is getting called out on them. End of story. Get over it.

Oh and by the way an embryo is just as much an unborn grandparent as unborn child if you want to use that emotive phrasing.

Please stop trying to give the impression you are any great supporter of human life, being an evangelistic Christian that is highly unlikely, you are instead a supporter of a literal reading of a book written a couple of thousand years ago, one that defended the rights of slave owners and the mass rape of conquered peoples.

1. Court deserves her Companion of the Order of Australia for services to Australia, tennis wise. http://honours.pmc.gov.au/honours/awards/2007753

Bugger Kerry O'Brien's and others intolerance of that.

If would-be Orders of Australia holders all had to pass an LGBQTI-ABC Political Correctness Test few would qualify.

2. If there were a LGBQTI-ABC Political Correctness Test then the different Australians of the Year Award system would be UNFAIRLY WEIGHTED IN FAVOUR OF WOMAN AND MINORITIES!

Perish the thought.

I don't like tennis and have absolutely no interest in a silly mindless activity with two meatheads bouncing a small ball back and forth to each other until one misses it. Talk about being a brainless ninny.

Is that what Margaret Court is, a brainless ninny? Going by her Wikipedia profile she doesn't seem to have much upstairs.

So if the tennis hat fits . . . . . . . . hey, wear it!

Of course OzSpen is correct. Many detractors of the Bible's view of marriage and sexuality often fall right into the definition of a bigot: "utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion".

The same could be said of those advocates of Climate Change. There is this intolerance of any other view and an unwillingness to debate the subject.

Margaret Court is only expressing what the Bible says on the subject of homosexuality. As Ozspen has pointed out, the Constitution extends to her this right under "prohibiting the free exercise of any religion".

If a previous recipient of the The Companion of the Order of Australia wants to return it in protest, then by all means do so. Perhaps they will regard this as their own little persecution as they seek to defend the rights of homosexuals to have their say, whilst wanting to prevent the likes of Margaret Court from having hers.

I agree with the author, who produces excellent arguments supporting his point of view. And like everybody else in this country, Australia, home of the free, he has the right to express his opinion.

The judge(s) of the Australia Awards, similarly have the right of selection, provided they apply the rules for the awards correctly, and without bias.

Therefore, while everybody is entitled to their own opinion, discrimination cannot be seen to have occurred in the selection process. If a person is the most eminently qualified, then the natural choice can only be made on the basis of merit.

Kerry O'Brien should NOT have received an award in the first place, the boring, Leftist bigot, who has done nothing for anyone but himself.

A bigot is someone intolerant of someone else with a different idea or opinion. Free speech allows almost anything be said about anyone, but even according to man's own rule books [laws, regulations, etc.] are there not exceptions to absolutely free speech?

Can I call you a knucklehead or worse without suffering for it? Can I throw a rock at you because of your words against me?

There is a time when it maybe better to remain silent than to speak, is there not? Freedom to be silent, but some will undoubtedly insist on having what they perceive as their particular grievances heard. My rights? Who defended Jesus before Pontius Pilate? Was he guilty as charged? What were the charges?

"Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?
And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly." Matt 27:13-14

But we can speak for him and we can speak for Margaret Court. Is it not amazing that we hear so many slamming her for standing up for her rights. Should she also be crucified or otherwise physically punished for holding fast to what she believes? Should we, that is me and others, speaking in support of her also be punished...? How far can a person go with his right to speak freely? When must he remain silent? When is it that he cannot remain silent?

"Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself" Phil 2:3

Nay Mopi

How dare you mumble tennis is "a silly mindless activity".

Wash your mouth out with soap, Moped.

All ball games like Aussie Rules "aerial ping pong" are mindless by your bwutal standards.

Is not tennis the sport of Henry the VIII, sundry other monarchs, gentlemin and wimmin, Wimbledon AND the Australian Open, eveywhere, Matey!

http://www.hrp.org.uk/hampton-court-palace/whats-on/royal-tennis-at-hampton-court/#gs.r9dab7

Has not Nick Kyrgios, Australia's next Governor-General and Saint, put Orstraya on the map?

Check out Nick's dashing diplomacy http://youtu.be/P0dKBZNzxog?t=14s

Pete de la Puck

Steve and Steelrudux Yup! And yes Mr O. It's pretty mind-numbing crick in the neck stuff! Thwack, thump, wallop, yeeeehah. thwack, thump, wallop, grunt. thwack, scream!
Alan B.

Spencer. Save the (monumental) BS writ large, for your feeble-minded camp followers! Garbage in, garbage out, risible rubbish. And that's high praise!
Alan B.

Kerry O'Brien should NOT have received an award in the first place,
ttbn,
My sentiments also. No-one in the Public Service should receive an award on top of their unwarranted high salaries for a mediocre-poor performance.
We desperately need a National Service scheme to address the dreadful mentality of people in authority !

When the bully (margaret Court) stops being the bully. Dressing things up in religion, freedom of religion, freedom of speech is merely a red herring. The words she spews actually do harm people and she has made it her life’s ambition to harass and bully lgbtqia+ people. Not only this, by preaching this at the pulpit, she encourages people to do the same. She is literally abusing her poison. Saying I love them, hate the sin not the person is rubbish as she is those words. People are just biting back and she doesn’t like it. This bigoted , judgmental intolerance is against the bible and Australian values - at least the ones documented on official sites.

Amadeus

In the archeological excavations of Pompeii, scattered evidence exists of Christianity.

A better question to ask would be; what was the early reactions of those christians to the surrounding debauchery of the crumbling Roman Empire?

That is the question for residents of a Christian culture steeped in tradition and respect for its historic achievements and contributions.

One of its hallmarks is taking the cross into battle, as did Christ himself, when overturning the money changers tables on the steps of the Temple.

Fight back is not something you appear to understand!

Dan

Alan B.

<<Spencer. Save the (monumental) BS writ large, for your feeble-minded camp followers! Garbage in, garbage out, risible rubbish. And that's high praise!
Alan B.>>

I find it impossible to have a rational conversation with you because: (1) Of your continuous logical fallacies (erroneous reasoning) with Ad Hominem, Red Herring, (2) Your slandering of others and me, and (3) Your failure to address the specific content I wrote about.

The Inspector,

<<Many detractors of the Bible's view of marriage and sexuality often fall right into the definition of a bigot: "utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion".>>

Could there be some on this forum who oppose a biblical view of marriage? I discriminate in support of a biblical view because of my confidence in the Lord God Almighty and the trustworthiness of Scripture. "All Scripture is God-breathed (out)..."

"But when someone hands back an award because the same awards team ensured Court had her current gong upgraded to Australia's highest you call it is wrong and a form of bigotry".

No I call it grandstanding. The peanut has been a grandstander all his life, & now he has lost his platform is looking for anything he can find to try to get it back.

A total peanut, not worth bothering with.

1. Margaret Court was one of the greatest champions of tennis ever, with records which are still outstanding.

2. Margaret Court has her own strong views on same-sex marriage, and we're all entitled to our own points of view.

3. She has had the awards conferred on her for her tennis record, not for her opinions. Nobody should get such awards merely for their opinions - or, conversely, get knocked back because of their opinions.

Fair enough. Move on.

Joe

Spencer.
Thank you for your article.

LesP,

<<Spencer.Thank you for your article.>>

Thank you for your encouragement, Les. What would you care to comment about - from the article? Any comments pro or con?

Christians will say they love homosexuals in some weird twisted way,
because they consider homosexuals God's children too.
But lets be honest here can we?

Christians disdain and detest homosexuals.
It's part of their religious DNA, but Christians don't actually want to kill the homosexuals.
The bible probably says somewhere that homosexuals should be put to death,
but it also says they shouldn't kill.

It's all just a big can of worms.

Based on your Oxford English Dictionary definition, they're both bigots and they're both intolerant.

- Welcome to 2021, The Year of the Brainfart -

I reckon Margaret should go over the top with it.
Pay an extra 50k to have her own marching band and entourage
Also she could play the theme song from Rocky 'Gunna Fly Now'
http://youtu.be/AxWejrVYcCg
And the theme song from Karate Kid 'You're the Best'
- And just like rub it in everyone's faces -

Other than that kinda sick of hearing about it.
I don't care about tennis or gay rights much.

Am I a bigot for saying that?
Maybe I'm a tennis bigot.

plantagenet,

I think Nick Kyrgios used his head as a racquet when he was first leaning tennis as a youngster and didn't get a racquet until he was about 19 years old.

It's amazing what bashing his head into the ground or against a brick wall every time he missed a shot would end up doing to his brain.

Margaret Court is one Christian who doesn't "hate" or "disdain" homosexuals; she has them in her congregation and as friends. Religion has nothing to do with the fact that I abhor homosexuality but I don't hate homosexuals either. People who say that people against sexual deviance hate the deviants are just projecting their own hatreds; they think that other people must be like them - you don't like something, then you must hate it. They are immature and ignorant.

It seems to me that the people who voted for SSM thought that when it was introduced, people against it and not comfortable with homosexuality would change their minds. Well, we haven't. And, if you don't like that, as Margaret Court would say, so what! Get over it.

Our Western Governments were once guardians of the Christian light of truth and morality; but not anymore!

Now they are the agents of debauchery and devil worship.
Any wonder more evil forces are usurping the legitimate role of rule.

Trump has given the West a taste of strong leadership and a renewed hope, sufficient to quell this outburst, and encouraging it is to see the rise of resistance from it!

Witnessing those strong in their Christian faith, rise to the challenge posed by illegitimate pressure by the debauched gay rights terrorists, loud mouthing against Margaret Court, for the latest example, is heartening.

Dan

Margaret Court is entitled to express her lawful views peacefully.
And it is perfectly in order for her to disagree with accepted community standards.
However, any intelligent thinking person hearing them will only take account of sensible ideas?
An unrealistic or unlawful concept would be disregarded?
When sound reasons are given, it adds validity to thoughts they hear expressed.
Alternatively, negative utterances will put a question mark over those who say them?

The issue really is: 'why was Margaret deemed eligible to receive an honour'?
What has happened lately that we don't know about?
If she is indeed eligible, then on this occasion decriers have got it wrong.
They are showing that they don't accept democratic process.
So I remind them: 'we live in a democracy.'
That means we don't seek to harm other persons, or to steal from them.
Broadly speaking, we should not try to cause unfair disadvantage to any other person.
Instead, instinct dictates we be supportive of one another.

And remember, in our democracy we let the majority set the standards and make the rules.
They are not always right, but it is a system which is far better than a dictatorship.
Any deficiencies can be pointed out to that majority, and thoughtful reasons given for change.
It is not up to us to make dramatic gestures to highlight a perceived flaw.
Doing so is entertaining, but not helpful.
Using reason is far better, and longer lasting as well.

I think it is important for older persons to project a 'quietly steadfast' manner.
No dramatic gestures or charades are needed.
They should be seen as 'the voice of truth, the voice of reason'.
And whatever happens, all persons should accept the decision of the umpire.

I'm Catholic and ex-Protestant. I claim there's a spiritual component to homosexuality, and it's based on a testimony I heard from an ex-homosexual years ago.

I used to be Presbyterian. I suppose it was about 30 years ago when we had Sir Fred Nile come to our church in Brisbane for a weekend seminar. To be honest I don't remember a word he said, but I do remember a testimony given by a former homosexual who came with him.

The chap claimed he'd been involved in the Sydney homosexual lifestyle, and that included everything going from the Mardi Gras to BDSM.

He said he and other homosexuals used to stand around street corners in Kings Cross, talking about how they'd slowly kill Fred Nile.

Yet somehow Christ got to him through one of Fred Nile's ministries, and he'd become Christian against all the odds. But he'd had a "fall".

He tried to commit suicide, but didn't succeed. Then he had another "fall". This time he was determined to succeed in killing himself.

He said he had it all set up and ready to go, and it would have been successful, beyond any doubt. But just as he was about to pull the pin (I don't know the method as he didn't say), he claimed Christ materialised in the far corner of the lounge room, moved towards him, and then somehow seemed to merge.

From that time on he said he never even had to struggle with a temptation to homosexuality, despite the fact he'd been so thoroughly immersed in that lifestyle for so long.

He had married a woman who accepted his past, and she was there with a couple of their young sons to prove it.

Personally I thought he had a lot of guts to tell the story in a conservative church, but he did.

I didn't have any difficulty believing him as I've had my own spiritual experiences. I think he was telling the truth.

While the left whingers on this site would try and redefine the meaning of bigot to anyone whose opinion differs from theirs, the real definition of a bigot is someone that is intolerant of differing opinions.

Secondly, the argument that left whingers are intolerant of intolerance is complete bollocks, as their censorious venom is not just directed at those that are intolerant, but at anyone that criticises their dogma. The rage against Jordan Peterson is certainly not based on any intolerance that he has ever displayed.

As such Daniel Andrews is probably one of the worst bigots in Australia. His intolerance of any opinion other than his is blatant.

I don't think this is a place of debate?
Rather it is a place to express opinion?
However, to point out an error or other 'wrinkle' to someone might be ok?

A wise man listens to all views.
He 'digests' these, and perhaps modifies the one he holds.
But he has only one view. His own.
How he arrived at it is his business.
It is the view he expresses, and perhaps uses in public, or in his workplace.
Holding just one view doesn't mean he doesn't listen to others.
To hold a strong, well thought out view, and to act on it, is not wrong or reprehensible?
Because it perhaps differs from yours is not a bad thing in itself?

And to the last 'poster'.
I say to you in a friendly way...
Use of the words 'who' or 'which' in place of 'that' would make your post easier to read.
I can visualise the 'wroth' of my teachers had I done as you have.
Please accept my comment as positive, and without any rancour on my part.

Dear shadowminister,

You claim: "The rage against Jordan Peterson is certainly not based on any intolerance that he has ever displayed."

What rage? Hardly of the kind you lot employ against people like
Yassmin Abdel-Magied.

Peterson has always struck me as a sad person with plenty of personal issues he needs to deal with. As long as he stuck to his expertise then things were fine and he was certainly worth listening to. Once outside that he has always struggled.

"When will bigots quit bullying Margaret Court?"

The short answer - when she stops bullying and causing harm to vulnerable people. Until then, she deserves every ounce of fight back coming her way.

So Margaret won a gong for being a superb tennis player. Ho hum. Then Rod Laver got a higher award for the same thing. Ho hum again. But his was higher than Margaret's (he's a bloke after all). So now the committee who hands out these gongs have to make up for this error and upgrade Margaret's award to equal Rod's. What a schamozzle.

Just goes to even further undermine any value these awards may have had in the first place.

Hi Aries,

I suppose that nowadays, to have an opinion is potentially to insult or upset or bully somebody else, who doesn't have the same opinion.

So, as you suggest, Margaret Court may have bullied someone by her stance on gay marriage.

But is it possible that you have now upset, even bullied, Margaret Court, by your stance against hers ? That it might aggrieve her ? And an opinion alone shouldn't aggrieve anybody ?

No opinion necessarily has priority over any other. They're just opinions, not kicks in the nuts. [Oops, sorry, too much Sergio Leone].

Joe

SR,

Have you been living under a rock? The venom directed at JP is orders of magnitude greater than that directed at YAM.

YAM doesn't need security to protect her from physical violence when giving a talk, nor has protests against her taking a place at a university, people trying to block her entry into countries or trying to ban her books.

The left is far more violent than the right.

Margaret Court deserves all the awards she is given for being a big ball whacker.

Wouldn't you like to be a Big Whacker like Margaret and get a nice shiny gold medallion from the Queen of Australia.

Mr uneducated troll,

No, I wouldn't take any medals from you.

shifty&shadyminister,

The awards are given out by the Queen of Australia.

PS If you want to exchange yours for a knighthood you will need to see Tony Abbott.