Dear Loudmouth,

Bulldust.

It is your choice if you decide to be a drunkard.

It is not your choice to be attracted to the same sex as much as it isn't someone's choice to be born black.

You are smart enough to know the distinction so why keep conflating them?

Steely,

Bulldust,

I'll speak at your level, so you can understand me.

Your another self-proclaimed expert and again you are wrong!

Alcoholics, in the main do not have a choice, you only have a choice if you choose to stop drinking.
Like drug addicts, if they chose to stop they would not be drug addicts.
Now this same sex crap, in many cases, especially today, it really 'is' a matter of choice.
I actually know people (females), two of them, extended family members, who started out straight, had kids, then decided to go queer, then some time later, decided to go straight again.
It's in fashion now you know?
So a fail on that one too.
Now you really are reaching if you have to play the 'black' card.
Again fail, so apparently Steely, unlike loudmouth, you're apparently 'not' 'smart enough to know the distinction, so why keep conflating them'?

Steele,

No, I don't believe that. I'm actually appalled that anybody could compare homosexuals to ethnic groups or 'races' like that. What, is it all in the DNA ?

What has the 'Left' come to ? Certainly, let and let live as far as homosexuals are concerned, but let's not pretend that their issues, like those of DINKs everywhere, are somehow inherently progressive.

Joe

Foxy and SR,

When an appeal court "allows an appeal" what they mean is that they have ruled in favour of the appellant.

The university can appeal further to the house of lords but need to get approval from the house of lords itself.

As the UK judicial system is still linked to the Aus system, the judgement by the appeal court of the UK will have a strong persuasive precedent making it difficult for an Aus judge to rule differently.

Joe,

The fact is - condemning gays (and others) to hell
is vilification.

One of those attacking Rugby Australia's code of
conduct was Sydney's Anglican archbishop Glenn
Davies who eloquently defended Folau's - " right
as a citizen to speak of what he believes without
a threat to his employment."

This is the same archbishop who compelled 34
Anglican headmasters and headmistresses last year
to sign an open letter demanding the law continue to
allow them to sack gay teachers and expel gay students.

There's one rule for religious schools and another for the
rest of society.

Folau is free as a footballer to vilify gays
without losing his job but were he coaching
rugby at a Sydney Anglican school
and tweeting approval of gays it might well see him shown the
door.

If you're demanding rights for yourself which you won't
extend to others, as I've stated previously numerous
times, that is not freedom. It is privilege.

We are now in the middle of this pandemonium because
Folau changed his mind.

For a $4 miilion contract he initially agreed to go easy
on denouncing among other vices, the evils of
homosexuality. He traded his freedom of speech for money.

So why say yes in the first place and sign a contract if
that is such a profound violation of his rights and
his faith?

And why does he now expect more millions from Rugby Australia
because he's copped the ordinary consequences of going
back on his word?

It appears that Folau's target is everything in this
scenario. If Folau were insisting on vilifying say -
women, the disabled, Jews, or anyone else, would anyone
object to Rugby Australia insiting he shut up about
it. No, it's the homosexuals who are at fault, afterall
they are not normal - right? God invented Adam and Eve.
(Who then invented Adam and Steve?)

Our resident expert headmistress has again redefined the topic in question.
Apparently condemning queers (and others) to hell (who are these others?), is vilification.
So then it appears that religion, no, nearly half the world are vilifyers by condemning the queers to hell.
Given that, that is such a large number, it must be just, in which case it's OK to condemn the queers to hell.
That's settled then, next fail?
It's good to see she's starting to come around.
She states very clearly and un-ambiguisly that; 'there's one rule for religious schools and another for the rest of society'.
Correct!
Religious schools are where people who know better than the rest of society go, so suck it up, the truth is rarely appreciated by those who don't live it, or make the grade.
Now rights, NO you schlep, 'if you are demanding rights for yourself which you won't extend to others', it IS a right and NOT a privilege, because you are free to demand/ask and if your demands are met or granted, you narrow minded ........ , it is not a privilege it is confirmation and justification in saying that you are worth it, it's NOT a privilege.
You are allowed to feel privileged by the appointment, but you did not just get a job that you're over paid and under qualified for.
That we leave for the females.
Now the contract, why do you insist on mis-representing everything in an insane attempt to always make your case.
That moron in charge of NRL stuffed up by not writing the offending clause in before he signed the contract, which she later tried to get him to sign an amendment.
His manager instructed him not to sign, anyway had he done so that clause and all the subsequent letters of warning you so stupidly attempt to wave in our faces, ARE in-unmissable under sect 772 (or whatever number) of the law, so get it through your thick skull, he has done no wrong, it's only the under achievers aka, the jealous and envious who are wasting time on this.