Foxy, it does not matter that the case is religion related the same
problem exists whether the subject is religion, politics, energy,
coal, uranium, netball, Labour Party, One Nation, heavens even Global Warming !

Bazz have to admire those lying beggars
Climate changers that is
How did they deliver the hottest ever day to France this week
Raging fires in Spain, last year it was Greece
Beggers are running a convincing campaign

ALTRAV,

The rejection of Labor at the election was a good thing in itself but, as Nick Cater of the Menzies Institute warns, “social conservatives should be wary of claiming victory”.

The election win has not changed the “balance of power” in universities, the media, and in boardrooms. The ‘progressives’ are regrouping, ready to crusade again. The Coalition did not win the culture war “because it did not fight one”.

Government bureaucracies are still at stake, as are police and armed forces. And families are still at risk through the waffle on gender reassignment and same-sex garbage infitrating government schools.

Bazz,

The issue at hand isn't that Israel Folau holds certain beliefs.
It may be baffling to the reasonable person that he does, but
he's totally allowed to and no one's sacking him for them.

The problem is that he's repeatedly put statements trumpeting his
beliefs out into the public sphere and he won't retract them or
make any future guarantees to leave his phone in his pocket
next time he's confronted with the reality that everyone's
different.

Granted, comparing him to the drink-drivers and domestic
abusers of the rugby codes makes him look like a saint,
except for the part where you apologise and show contrition.

As for those who are actually funding an uneducated millionaire's
right to be homophobic? The 20,000 people (out of a population
of 25 million?)
We need to ask ourselves is this the way to improve the
country and the future for our children and grand-children?

There are some big questions here.
How far does a person's right of expression extend?
Does being a Christian necessarily mean you can express views
that hurt others on a public forum?
Does it allow Folau to express his views in the way that he did?

The people who've helped Folau amass the millions for his
war chest for his upcoming legal battle with Rugby Australia
do they realise they are actually funding a religious
fanatic whose backward views are harmful to others?

Apparently giving money to Folau a guy who wants the right to
say disparaging things about the way certain people are born
without defending having to face any consequences - is
to some all about defending Australian's freedom of religion
and freedom of speech.

A real bunch of patriots, these donors are. Given this
whole situation has somehow become a national issue?
The mind boggles.

Foxy as the thread has become about politics I would like to tell you and Paul about this weekend
Please understand I remain Labor to the bone
For the first time NSW Labor members got to vote on our leader
Jody MACKay won, she is from the right of the party, and stood firmly at an ICAC inquiry against both filth in our ranks and rich business men
She is the fresh air we needed, privileged to have worked on her team when she first entered Parliament
The road ahead is long but looks good
Worth noting rank and file, post Rudd, voted for Albo, caucus overruled and installed Bill Shorten

Foxy, why do you find it so hard to accept that we are all different, as you yourself have just pointed out.
The fact that someone has expressed a 'personal' opinion based on his 'personal' beliefs, does not mean we should all start panicking and carrying on.
In reality, everyone other than Falau (who objected to his comments) is at fault.
Starting with the NRL, then, and probably, mostly next to blame is that queer little mongrel from Quantas.
Now, he too is allowed an 'opinion'.
What he is not allowed to do is 'act' on that opinion, think about that a second and you will get why.
The irony of cases such as this is, that by doing something in response we have given credibility to his statements.
Those who responded negatively did so because they believed what he said, so they must be Christians, and if they are Christians then they should have agreed with what he said.
Now on the other hand if you don't believe in God or heaven and hell, then you would not care, let alone even listen to what he said.
You would have glossed over those comments just like someone preaching on a street corner.
Those with your attitude and convictions would have everyone being of the same beliefs, and all of them nice and never a disparaging word.
For example most people like alcohol, sports, theatre, chili, and a myriad of other things which I hate and abhor.
Am I not different from 'mainstream' Australians?
I continually insult people for consuming such food and drink, should I stop voicing my 'opinion', which by the way is based on fact, not fiction, as in Falau's case.
No Foxy, he had EVERY right to say what he did, and we had every right to ignore him.
As for his contractual obligations, it appears there may be evidence that the NRL have broken section 772 of the law, which precedes anything Falau did 'after' he signed the contract.
So it is that because we are ALL different that we conduct ourselves differently.