Big Nana points out that there is no uproar on behalf of the fornicators, drunks etc - just the lhomos.

That is down to the power of the Gaystapo, which the do-gooders and screechers fear.

A gentleman returning Australia after several years absence has expressed his shock at:

"The breadth and depth of the grip of rainbow wokeness (in Australia). It has rendered supposedly right-of-centre institutions and erstwhile flag bearers mere useful idiots of the secularist progressive ruling class in the march the towards its total victory." (Paul Collits, Quadrant, 24/6/19)

As Shadow Minister suggests, the foreign, imperialist Go Fund Fund Me has probably engendered even more sympathy for Folau. I hope someone gets a legal opinion on whether the $750k has to be refunded to donors and not passed on to Folau. I'm sure that the donors would want the money to be handed over to Folau by GFFM. Some organisation (couldn't understand the ABC person's nasal mumbling) has already shelled out a hundred grand.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You write;

“For GFM they have broken a contract with 10 000 people and will have to spend a fortune refunding each and every donation and have set themselves up for a potential class action suit with their venal action.”

Oh stop being a sook mate.

GFM will have increased its standing in this country except for the hard right precisely because many people will have not realised that they have solid ethics behind what they will allow their site to be used for. Good on them.

So are you going to stand up for Jaidyn Stephenson the young Collingwood player who place $36 dollars worth of bets and now has the sit out 10 games and possibly miss out on playing finals all because he exercised a freedom we all take for granted, the right to place a bet. Indeed the AFL take millions of advertising and sponsorship dollars form the betting industry.

His contract and the AFL code of conduct specifically forbid what he did but such contracts are worthless in your opinion.

When are you going to insist on justice for Jaidyn?

Anyway it is good to see you against the bosses and sticking up for the worker for once, even if he is one of the most highly paid in the country. One ideology subsuming another?

On this whole Folau thing I'm rather ambivalent. I don't agree with his sentiments, re gays and others go to hell, I simply do not believe there is a hell, or a heaven for that matter, so no ones going to either place, homosexuality does not reward or penalise a person in anyway. His employer giving clear instruction through an employment contract needs to be tested in court, so I'm not opposed to Folau having his day in court. Others lending their support through cash donations, I also don't have a problem with that.

If Folau had engaged in out and out hate speak, like gays should be done away with, then that would be a different story, in my opinion.

SR,

Still only a few hours old Folau's warchest is now nearly $500k and probably will hit several $m. It looks like RA is in for a serious fight (which is probably why it offered Folau $2m to go away)

As for GFM, the problems it now has are:

-Considering that GFM has no problem with pages for a bloke to buy a ferrari and plenty of other dodgy causes, its actions appear to be more virtue signalling than consistent application of principles.

Secondly, while collecting donations are done automatically, the refunds now need to be done manually for 10 000 donors, and based on average business costs for manual transactions at about $30 each, the cost of 300k to refund the 10 000 donors will be a huge hit. And if some details are lost, they will be tied up for ages.

Finally, GFM has now alienated the Christian community which has always been disproportionately generous donors which should be a large chunk of its core market. Which for any business is a bad move.

Paul,

Your last post was factually incorrect. There was nothing in Folau's contract that addressed his twitter post. Only a verbal discussion afterwards.

Hi Paul,

But he didn't, did he ? Simply that - presumably for believing homosexuals, drunks, adulterers, thieves , etc. - their book says that unless they repent, they will go to hell. Why should that worry anybody who doesn't believe in hell, like you and me ? Folau doesn't express any hate in all of that for who he would perceive as the sinner, only for the sin.

Is it a hate crime now to criticise what Folau sees as 'sins' ? Or is what he has said simply criticism ? Or - FGS - is criticism now defined as hate ?

I look forward to the day when snow-flakes can grow a pair. Who knows, with the wonders of gender fluidity and modern medicine ?

Cheers,

Joe