We were warned that the Gaystapo would not be satisfied with SSM, that they would want more. But the muscle-headed politicians and 60% of voters with similar muscles between their ears would not listen. Now, here they are again, trying to prevent freedom of speech and 'normalise' their behaviour.

The idiot Prince William told a group of homos yesterday that he wished that their perversion could be regarded as normal.

From an anonymous blogger:

(Folau’s case) is complicated by the fact the enterprise in question (RA) is a monopoly and it is part business, part administrator and part regulator. This makes the penalty on Folau extremely harsh because he is effectively being denied employment in Australia by a kangaroo court that is judge, jury and executioner.”

I can now understand why the former Human
Rights Commissioner Prof. Gillian Triggs
came out with her comments in support of
Israel Folau. She was looking at the case
from a legal perspective. What Rugby Australia
has done may be unlawful under -
s772 of the Fair Work Act 2009 - as discrimination
on the basis of his religious beliefs.

Prof. Patrick Parkinson is Dean of Law at the
University of Queensland and Chair of Freedom
For Faith. He is able to look at things from both
the legal perspective and the religious one.
His article listed below is one of the best that
I've read on this case. He feels that the Israel
Folau case has been mishandled from the start
and asks if its too late to fix things?

It's worth a read as the Professor spells out each
of the aspects of the case and presents well
reasoned arguments.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-israel-folau-case-has-been-mishandled-from-the-start/11253210

It's made me re-think the entire matter.

Foxy,

"It's made me re-think the entire matter."

Good on you!!

Is Mise,

Thanks for that.

Have a read of the link.

It certainly has made me re-think things.

ttbn, a slight correction.
So as to not give the queers the idea that they were 'overwhelmingly' accepted; they weren't and still aren't, 'overwhelmingly' accepted.
You said '60% of voters'.
I read it as 60% of 'all voters', which I took to mean 'all' Australian voters was clearly not the case.
It was 60% of those who voted, because the vote was not compulsory, so not ALL Aussies voted.
Haven't bothered to comment on this one, I don't really care, especially after reading the comments so far, but as I have said in the past, I can't stand by and let something incorrect get through, it just leads to mistakes and wrong conclusions.