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.