Freedom of Speech Part 2: Margaret Court and gay rights

[David]

[Skids]

[Skids]

[Mugwump]

[Mugwump]

[Dave The Man]

Bloody Bible Basher

[Pies4shaw]

[Pies4shaw]

Of course, the other, other side of free speech is that if you're going to hold moronic, bigoted views and you insist on embarrassing yourself by making them public, you've got to expect some rough treatment when you don't go on the Bolt Report: http://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/mar ... 76abcc530e

[stui magpie]

You find her views moronic and bigoted, a lot of people agree with her views which, until not that long ago, were the mainstream.

We're talking here about something that is currently not legal in Australia.

I only changed my view on this in recent years, and it wasn't from being referred to as moronic or bigoted, which would have only hardened my views at the time. It was from education. reading more on the subject and understanding.

Lawyers probably don't know a lot about the principles of change management, but one of the basics is if you want to get people to change you first have to get them on board with reason to change. bring them along with you, not bully and insult them into submission, because that only leads to passive resistance

The gay marriage advocates need to look at his as a case study of how to do it wrong. They may never change Margaret Courts view on the subject, but by attacking her they attack every person who agrees with her and that's a juvenile way to try to win an argument.

[Pies4shaw]

You believed that it was all part of God's Divine Plan? Try pulling the other one.

[Skids]

It's 'just naming rights' is it P4S?

So you'd be happy for the new stadium in Perth to be named KKK Park? The MCG rebadged as Nazi Park or perhaps we could build a stadium in Hobart called Rolf Harris reserve?... it is, after all Just naming rights yeah?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf_Harris
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

[Pies4shaw]

No Skids, I wouldn't. My point was that there is a distinction between what people are allowed to buy with their money and what society considers "honourable". As to your specific examples, the KKK and Nazis probably can't buy naming rights to anything because I expect they're illegal, unlike Etihad. Also, it's reasonably unlikely that anything much will be named after Rolf Harris in the near future. I'd probably think that was an error of judgement if it were to happen but I probably wouldn't care much. I was a little bemused by the rush to expunge all traces of him from public life, though, at the time. I didn't turn my mind to it closely at the time (I didn't really care enough) but I did sense that it was being done as a response to a collective sense of embarrassment.

[stui magpie]

You believed that it was all part of God's Divine Plan? Try pulling the other one.

No, and i won't pull the other one, I don't want an invoice

[Wokko]

I completely agree with Stui, a lot of fence sitters are starting to fall into the "No" category simply because of the blatant intolerance, rudeness, bullying and bigotry from the Pro SSM lobby. Personally I think the marriage act should be repealed, thereby creating legal equality and making marriage a contract issue but in the event of a referendum I'm going to vote NO simply because of the disgusting behaviour of the Yes camp.

[David]

Some people would say Court is the one acting like a bully here. Funny how easy it is to claim victimhood when you're on the same side as people who complain about left-wing "snowflakes" and professional victims.