The lunatic left

[SirRumpole]

Folau and Court made comments which are unequivocally bigoted,

Folau and Court made comments according to their religion.

As I said I don't agree with what they said but I support their right to say it.

Your statement "Harmonious societies have no room for bigotry" is itself a bigoted statement because it attacks the right to free speech which we all have and suggests that certain statements should be made illegal. There is no room for that in a free society.

 

[IFocus]

Like the crucifixion of Israel Folau and Margaret Court, over their differing opinion on homosexuality, to the 'progressive' left.
Strongly and ably supported by the left leaning, in the media.

So you wish to stop freedom of expression critical of public figures?

The media shouldn't report this?

Fox Media might have a problem with that!

Note they were both dealing with conservative organisations or are you saying rugby and tennis are bastions of left wing extremist?

 

[sptrawler]

Folau and Court made comments according to their religion.

As I said I don't agree with what they said but I support their right to say it.

Your statement "Harmonious societies have no room for bigotry" is itself a bigoted statement because it attacks the right to free speech which we all have and suggests that certain statements should be made illegal. There is no room for that in a free society.

You will never have harmonious society, when one sector is ostracized for their beliefs, it rings back to Nazi Germany.
To live harmoniously, society has to accept that different sectors will have different beliefs, the homosexuals gained legal acceptance. That doesn't mean that religions have to change their scriptures, to agree with the practice.
There is a difference between acceptance and converting everyone, both parties have equal rights to their beliefs.
One has to wonder who is the worse bigot, (1) the christians for their beliefs, or (2) the the parties who believe they shouldn't be allowed to have their beliefs.
Bigotry:
(1)obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular,(2) prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

 

[sptrawler]

So you wish to stop freedom of expression critical of public figures?

The media shouldn't report this?

Fox Media might have a problem with that!

Note they were both dealing with conservative organisations or are you saying rugby and tennis are bastions of left wing extremist?

I can't follow what you are getting at, what I was saying was Folau and Court had every right to preach their religion, to those who wished to listen to it.
The press and the left leaning mob, took it upon themselves to gag people preaching what they believe and have believed for years.
They then took it to another level and attempted to ban a person from gaining employment in his given trade for life, for his beliefs.
If you find that acceptable, well that is fine, I personally am not that vindictive and actually find it pretty repulsive, when there is a concerted push to force a person to change their beliefs.
I would have the same problem if it happened to you, I have actually seen mob rule at a power station and it isn't attractive, once in the 1970's when a young bloke was being forced into joining the union and in the 1990's when a union tried to force another union to shut the station down.
The only difference now is, the mob has a venue, which is the media which loves confrontation and chaos.
Just my opinion.

 

[rederob]

Folau and Court made comments according to their religion.

As I said I don't agree with what they said but I support their right to say it.

Your statement "Harmonious societies have no room for bigotry" is itself a bigoted statement because it attacks the right to free speech which we all have and suggests that certain statements should be made illegal. There is no room for that in a free society.

I think you need lessons in comprehension and logic.
It is impossible for my statement to be bigoted as it is a statement of fact.
Furthermore, there is no right to free speech in Australia, and that ground has been ploughed dozens of times.
Finally, I made the point earlier that bigotry is of itself not unlawful, so your final remark is again false.

 

[SirRumpole]

t is impossible for my statement to be bigoted as it is a statement of fact.

If your statement is a matter of fact, then prove it.

 

[rederob]

If your statement is a matter of fact, then prove it.

You tacitly proved it when you liked @sptrawler's post above.
Because you appear not to accept that words have meaning and are constructs of opinion, then it is impossible to prove anything to you.

 

[SirRumpole]

You tacitly proved it when you liked @sptrawler's post above.
Because you appear not to accept that words have meaning and are constructs of opinion, then it is impossible to prove anything to you.

Opinions aren't necessarily facts are they ?

 

[rederob]

Opinions aren't necessarily facts are they ?

This was your claim:

Bigotry is a personal opinion.

If bigotry means something then logic dictates it is beyond being a personal opinion.
If you don't accept that, so be it.

 

[rederob]

I can't follow what you are getting at, what I was saying was Folau and Court had every right to preach their religion, to those who wished to listen to it.

Revisit the Folau thread. Folau admitted to RA that he breached his contract. If Folau's contract to play rugby conditioned that he abide by rules of conduct that required he respect the beliefs and practices of other players then he should have acted within that undertaking. RA made clear that his religion per se was not at issue, it was his actions.

The press and the left leaning mob, took it upon themselves to gag people preaching what they believe and have believed for years.

There is no evidence this happened. Most people remain unhappy with bigots and that sentiment was echoed in the media. Folau and Court continued to do as they did previously.

They then took it to another level and attempted to ban a person from gaining employment in his given trade for life, for his beliefs.

Who is your "they"? RA, which is far removed from anything "left leaning", had an organisational obligation to act as it did. Brands, such as QANTAS and other also have no left leaning, and they did not want to be associated with RA if its pinup was a bigot. Folau made himself a commercial liability to any future employer.

If you find that acceptable, well that is fine, I personally am not that vindictive and actually find it pretty repulsive, when there is a concerted push to force a person to change their beliefs.

The problem with your case is that there are people being harmed by the likes of Folau and Court because their natural sexual preferences differ from imaginary biblical beliefs. Nothing prevents you or I, or Court or Folau, from believing whatever they want. Foisting those beliefs into the public arena where they cause harm to others is not helpful.

 

[SirRumpole]

The problem with your case is that there are people being harmed by the likes of Folau and Court because their natural sexual preferences differ from imaginary biblical beliefs.

What 'harm' ?

Those affected can simply laugh off the claims made by religious people. There is no evidence that actual harm is being done.

 

[rederob]

What 'harm' ?

Those affected can simply laugh off the claims made by religious people. There is no evidence that actual harm is being done.

There is a wealth of research suggesting you have no idea about this topic.

 

[SirRumpole]

There is a wealth of research suggesting you have no idea about this topic.

I would suggest that the recent plebiscite on SSM has shown that the country has largely moved on.

 

[rederob]

I would suggest that the recent plebiscite on SSM has shown that the country has largely moved on.

Create a thread on this if you are that interested, because this one is about the lunatic left.
However, the fact that over 38% of voters did not support SSM tells me that bigotry is alive and well in Australia.

 

[SirRumpole]

Create a thread on this if you are that interested,

I'm not.

But some gay and feminist campaigners could be described as loony Leftists.

 

[sptrawler]

Revisit the Folau thread. Folau admitted to RA that he breached his contract. If Folau's contract to play rugby conditioned that he abide by rules of conduct that required he respect the beliefs and practices of other players then he should have acted within that undertaking. RA made clear that his religion per se was not at issue, it was his actions.

There is no evidence this happened. Most people remain unhappy with bigots and that sentiment was echoed in the media. Folau and Court continued to do as they did previously.

Who is your "they"? RA, which is far removed from anything "left leaning", had an organisational obligation to act as it did. Brands, such as QANTAS and other also have no left leaning, and they did not want to be associated with RA if its pinup was a bigot. Folau made himself a commercial liability to any future employer.

The problem with your case is that there are people being harmed by the likes of Folau and Court because their natural sexual preferences differ from imaginary biblical beliefs. Nothing prevents you or I, or Court or Folau, from believing whatever they want. Foisting those beliefs into the public arena where they cause harm to others is not helpful.

Court and Folau were quoted, from sermons they gave to a congregation behind closed doors, that was leaked to the press, then the blood lust hit and the media hounded and challenged them to get the headline.
Qantas was being vindictive, as their pin up boy is homosexual and used their financial clout in a personal vendetta. If that is how we are going to gag and punish people, who don't agree with your personal sexual bent or have differing views, Australia is becoming a very sad place.
Also it takes Bigotry to a whole new level.
With Court, there was a concerted effort to have sporting awards stripped from her, for her personal religious beliefs, by the gay sector of the tennis world.
So who are the bigots, the ones who hold religious beliefs, or those who would try and crucify them, for having those beliefs?
The loony left think they have a monopoly on self righteousness, when in reality we are just having history repeat.

 

[rederob]

Court and Folau were quoted, from sermons they gave to a congregation behind closed doors, that was leaked to the press then the blood lust hit.
Qantas was being vindictive, as their pin up boy is homosexual and used their financial clout in a personal vendetta. If that is how we are going to gag and punish people, who don't agree with your personal sexual bent or have differing views, Australia is becoming a very sad place.
Also it takes Bigotry to a whole new level.

What don't you want to admit?
Court and Folau are bigots.
Both put their views into the public arena.
Neither are prevented from holding their views or making them public.
And bigotry does not have levels, just as rape has none.

 

[sptrawler]

What don't you want to admit?
Court and Folau are bigots.
Both put their views into the public arena.
Neither are prevented from holding their views or making them public.
And bigotry does not have levels, just as rape has none.

I never said they weren't bigots, but no more so than the ones who would try to use financial and media pressure to punish them, bigotry isn't a crime it is an unattractive trait that as I have shown most have.
It isn't a competition, as some would like to have us believe.
It shows a lack of self appraisal when bigots, use bigotry to suppress bigots, that don't agree with them. ?

 

[rederob]

I never said they weren't bigots, but no more so than the ones who would try to use financial and media pressure to punish them, bigotry isn't a crime it is an unattractive trait that as I have shown most have.

Protecting yourself from bigotry cannot be bigotry!
Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[sptrawler]

Protecting yourself from bigotry cannot be bigotry!
Why is this so hard to understand?

I guess it is the reason, why you can't admit you could be mistaken in your view, sometimes there isn't common ground.
Punishing people for their personal and lawful religious views, is persecution, which is a form of bigotry. Why is that so hard to understand.
Just because you don't agree with something, doesn't always mean you are right and the other person is wrong, sometimes humility is an attractive trait.