Steele:

“The obvious question then my friend is does this apply to the Catholic Church and if not why not?”

The Catholic Church already had an opinion on marriage long before the postal vote came along. They do not have to express an opinion and they can hardly take back an opinion when it has been fundamental to their teaching for centuries. Whether they can vote or not is irrelevant in their case.

The AFL has only now voiced an opinion. You don’t need an opinion unless it is in support of action. The AFL cannot act so it does not need an opinion. It can however be seeking to emotionally manipulate its followers.

Paul1405:

“What "rent" does the Catholic Church pay the state? Nothing, not a dime, in fact just the opposite, they have received billions in benefits from the state.”

Why should they pay rent on properties they own? They have received billions in benefits from the state but the state has also received billions from them. If they pulled out of schools and hospitals how would the state be able to afford to educate and hospitalise all those people cared for by the church? It makes good business sense and the state should adopt principles of good business sense

Holy Crap, it looks like common sense is prevailing...
No, it can't be, I must be seeing things

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/no-voter-fires-back-after-getting-the-sack/news-story/cebbf3ff4a85c80b01c842f271b9f604

Quote>>When Ms Sims was asked whether her views were hypocritical and counter-productive to her message of equality, she said: “We’ve got views and then we’ve got sexuality and it really breaks my heart that in this day and age it seems to be a common theme that … you get into more trouble for being a hypocrite than you will for being a homophobe.”<<

More trouble for being a hypocrite than being a homophobe?
Lets think on this.
Hypocrite?
Maybe that she promotes so called equality, but that she thinks her views and stance give her a right to attack and vilify others?
Homophobe?
Simply exercising her right to free speech.
I see this issue 'where the attack on free speech' is the greater issue in question, not one or another persons opinion on a particular issue.
Without free speech society would never have gotten this far as to allow gays in society in the first place.
does anyone disagree?
People on the Pro-gay side what's your opinion?
Free Speech Yes / No ?

- The left are insane if they think their views give them a free right to attack others, they're far more dangerous than conservatives; that's what I think.

I hate to be the one to remind everyone of the old saying 'never discuss religion or politics'. Everyone has missed the point about the religious controversy. Religion is a spiritual thing. We all have differing views on many topics but religion has preached it's message for hundreds of years. Not all religions are the same. What we MUST all consider is that religion has it's own laws that transcend any human laws and must override any clash of laws that conflict with any religious preaching. It is the absolute right of a particular religion to marry or not marry someone. The YES campaign is well out of order demanding the church to change it's stance on marriage just because they say so. There are many other religions, I'm sure there is one who wants more parishioners, queers being their main following. They will have to reject many of the bibles teachings, which will then force them to reform their church, just like in Henry the eights action back when the Church of England was formed so he could divorce his wife.

Dear phanto,

My goodness this seems to be a case of you arguing with yourself rather than I. To quote you once again “It is up to the AFL to protect inclusivity”.

Perhaps you are unaware but the AFL has been on this path for nearly a quarter of a century, arguably since that famous action by Nikki Winmer in 1983.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicky_Winmar#/media/File:Nicky_Winmar_gesture.jpg

They have expanded their inclusion ethos from indigenous matters to celebrating diversity and have lately made great strides in elevating womens football.

Two years ago they conducted the first Pride Game between St Kilda and the Swans. This is now an annual part of the fixture.

The individual clubs can go their own path but most have supported the AFL in their advocacy. Carlton is probably the most glaring exception but given its very strong ties to Liberal party identities over the years this is probably not surprising.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/carlton-blues/weak-hollow-disappointing-fans-condemn-carlton-on-marriage-equality-statement-20170920-gylk2b.html

There has been resistance to every single one of the initiatives put up by the AFL but thankfully the weight of public support has allowed them to flourish.

So for you to contend only the Catholic Church has right to claim a history in this matter is wrong. The AFL is doing exactly what one would expect given the strong stance of inclusion it has adopted over many years.

Dear Arm Chair Critic,

This is pretty simple. Gay people who are working for tax payer funded positions within the Catholic health and education systems are told to not to display their relationships openly.

“It's the great unspoken rule of Church organisations that gay people must fly under the radar. A 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is implied, but all of us are acutely aware we work in one of the few jobs not protected by anti-discrimination laws. This black cloud hangs over our every public action because, for some reason, teachers' lives are something our communities feel entitled to know and talk about. Whether it's our social media posts, or even just holding our partner's hand in public, we must carefully curate our outward appearance so as to not technically break Church rules, even if many of us live in a 'glass closet'.”
https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=52973

Why should they be denied that right?

Free Speech Yes / No ?

Hey SteeleRedux,
I think is some ways its a 'who came first' deal.
The church was there with its values long before that employee was born, why should the church change its fundamentals to accommodate them?
I see no reason why they should...
However, the issue of tax certainly makes it more complicated.

What are you referring to when you mean tax-payer funded?
If you're saying they are direct recipients of money given by the government who take it from taxpayers, then all taxpayers including gays have an interest in what goes on in that church.
There's a kind of basis where if they are receiving public money they have an obligation to all taxpayers, I'll accept that.

But if you are trying to say they are tax-payer funded by simply being 'exempt from paying tax' then I do not agree.

That they are exempt from tax does not necessarily make them taxpayer funded because they are not spending money taken from all taxpayers, they are just exempt, and it's not the same as taking money from everyone.

They are not spending our money, so they cannot be taxpayer funded.
Just 'exempt' nothing more nothing less'

Some charities should not be charities and I think in most cases the churches are the least worst offenders.

I still don't think you answered the question on whether you think the right to 'freedom of speech' is a right that is more important than single issues themselves, you'll have to explain better sorry.