Tennis Players. Greedy AND soft. Just ask Andy.

Bradman wrote:And a move to change the arena's name ffs!

Yeah...what a load of bollocks that is. The gay lobby, for years, demanded tolerance & understanding but now, if someone has the temerity to to voice their long held faith based opinion that doesnt agree with theirs, they become the biggest intolerant bastards on earth. Some huge double standards at work here.

Thus the 'ffs'.

Nothing wrong with taking the bible literally, though she might want to think about handing back the grand slams won on a Sunday.

Has Quntas supported same sex marriage or merely their chief exec?

I guess Billie Jean was really not her lover.

Bradman wrote:Thus the 'ffs'.  

Nothing wrong with taking the bible literally, though she might want to think about handing back the grand slams won on a Sunday.

And her Doubles titles.

taipan wrote:Has Quntas supported same sex marriage or merely their chief exec?

.

Both.

JGK wrote:

taipan wrote:Has Quntas supported same sex marriage or merely their chief exec?

.

Both.

Why would an institution give a view either way?

taipan wrote:

JGK wrote:

taipan wrote:Has Quntas supported same sex marriage or merely their chief exec?

.

Both.

Why would an institution give a view either way?

They don't want to be blacklisted by gays.

taipan wrote:

JGK wrote:

taipan wrote:Has Quntas supported same sex marriage or merely their chief exec?

.

Both.

Why would an institution give a view either way?

In Q's case, the support is part of the wider core of support by a whole bunch of Australian large companies. Those companies can sniff the wind and tell that SSM has broad majority support in Aust and so being seen to support it too makes sense from a branding point of view.

Qantas has the added issue that those companies are also big users of their services.

In the end, it is all about $$$.

JGK wrote:

taipan wrote:

JGK wrote:

taipan wrote:Has Quntas supported same sex marriage or merely their chief exec?

.

Both.

Why would an institution give a view either way?

In Q's case, the support is part of the wider core of support by a whole bunch of Australian large companies.  Those companies can sniff the wind and tell that SSM has broad majority support in Aust and so being seen to support it too makes sense from a branding point of view.

Qantas has the added issue that those companies are also big users of their services.

In the end, it is all about $$$.

Essentially what i said. The pink dollar can't be underestimated.

Big Dog wrote:

JGK wrote:

taipan wrote:

JGK wrote:

taipan wrote:Has Quntas supported same sex marriage or merely their chief exec?

.

Both.

Why would an institution give a view either way?

In Q's case, the support is part of the wider core of support by a whole bunch of Australian large companies.  Those companies can sniff the wind and tell that SSM has broad majority support in Aust and so being seen to support it too makes sense from a branding point of view.

Qantas has the added issue that those companies are also big users of their services.

In the end, it is all about $$$.

Essentially what i said. The pink dollar can't be underestimated.

It's more than the pink dollar. SSM has majority support from the straight community as well.

.

Does Mrs Court see this as a personal crusade?

Crapping on about the first two books of the bible last night. Not sure where that fits into in the scheme of Christian fundamentalism. Even hard core Jews stretch it to five with some interpretation thrown in.

skully wrote:Does Mrs Court see this as a personal crusade?

I'll let you decide:


'The devil's after our kids': Margaret Court's second serve

Greg Baum

Far from modify her denouncement of gay marriage, tennis champion Margaret Court has broadened it, saying that it was causing huge problems in countries where it was legalised, that homosexuality was an ungodly "lust for the flesh" and that LGBT tendencies in young people were "all the devil".

"That's what Hitler did. That's what communism did," Mrs Court said, "get in the minds of the children. There's a whole plot in our nation and in the nations of the world to get in the minds of the children."

In the face of polls that show 65 percent of Australians support gay marriage, Mrs Court said: "We know the statistics are very, very wrong. They're after our young ones, that's what they're after."

Mrs Court was speaking on Vision Christian Radio, elaborating on a previous letter to the West Australian and an appearance on the Project in which she said she would boycott Qantas from now on because of chief executive Alan Joyce's backing for gay marriage.

Mrs Court's issue has become Tennis Australia's problem. Calls for her name to be removed from the No 3 stadium at Melbourne Park after her first broadside had seemed excessive. But a series of players, when asked at the French Open, have criticised Mrs Court and Sam Stosur, Australia's No 1 ranked woman, has raised the possibility of a player boycott of Margaret Court Arena. Andy Murray, the world No 1 ranked man, said Tennis Australia would be wise to sort it out long before next January's Australian Open.

Mrs Court, 74, is pastor at the Victory Life Centre in Perth. She said she was driven to speak out by an open, but little publicised letter written by Queensland businessman Stuart Ballantyne, also condemning Qantas and Joyce for his gay marriage stance, linking it to Qantas' decline as a business on Joyce's watch, affecting "customer franchise and investor returns".

"This week, I have come off a Qantas flight from the US, and the plane is best described as old and shabby," Ballantyne wrote. "It needs to be clear that the personal crusade of the CEO has not impacted on the extraordinarily poor performance of the national carrier during his tenure."

Mrs Court's radio elaboration was rambling and syncopated. "It's very sad that they would use my tennis for something that is a now thing," she said, overlooking that it was her tennis that gained her a public platform in the first instance and that she was repeatedly acclaimed by the interviewer as "the greatest tennis player in history".

She said the gay lobby was a minority, yet somehow was bullying the majority. She said she had nothing against gay people, who could do as they pleased, except marry in the Christian tradition. But she also said homosexuality was a sin. "So is adultery. So is fornication," she said. "All those things are a lust for the flesh. We know it's not God. They know it, too.

In America, she said, "92 per cent were abused sexually or emotionally when they were young even to to be this way".

Tennis was full of lesbians, she said. In her day, there were only "a couple", but they were disproportionately influential. "They took the young ones to parties and things," she said.

Schoolchildren who struggled with their sexual identities must have been raised by parents who "don't care", surmised Mrs Court. She said she was a tomboy who liked to wear shorts and could kick a footy, prompting her mother to say" "You should have been a boy." But she was never had any doubt.

" 'If you feel like being a girl, you can dress like a girl'," mused Mrs Court. "What confusion to a child. I get confused talking about it. You can think, 'I'm a boy', and it affects your emotions and feelings and everything else. That's all the devil."

In her tennis-playing day, there was Renee Richards, a man who became a woman, "not a very good player".

Mrs Court said God's law on gay marriage was as clear and unambiguous as a policeman flagging down a car. "You pray there is enough people who will stand up and flag this nation down," she said, "And say, no, we are not going the way of some other nations, because they are having so many problems."

A caller hailed Mrs Court as "a prophetess, a judge", anointed by God.

We all know she is a known God botherer. Doesnt mean she should be persecuted for expressing her views, no matter how much it upsets the Latte set.

What a drop kick, or fluffed drop shot. I don't know if she is genuinely deluded or just in the hunker down and testify business to make a quid.

Big Dog wrote:We all know she is a known God botherer. Doesnt mean she should be persecuted for expressing her views, no matter how much it upsets the Latte set.

How is she being persecuted?

horace wrote:

Big Dog wrote:We all know she is a known God botherer. Doesnt mean she should be persecuted for expressing her views, no matter how much it upsets the Latte set.

How is she being persecuted?

Threatening to rename Margaret Court Arena for a start.

Big Dog wrote:

horace wrote:

Big Dog wrote:We all know she is a known God botherer. Doesnt mean she should be persecuted for expressing her views, no matter how much it upsets the Latte set.

How is she being persecuted?

Threatening to rename Margaret Court Arena for a start.

Stalingrad got renamed.

that is not persecution....persecution is her going after gays.

She was good with the racquet but has clearly lost the respect of many people who take exception to her extremist views (be these genuinely held or just for money).

Of course the stadium should be renamed. Court does not own it. The name is a privilege not a right.

horace wrote:that is not persecution....persecution is her going after gays.

She was good with the racquet but has clearly lost the respect of many people who take exception to her extremist views (be these genuinely held or just for money).

Of course the stadium should be renamed. Court does not own it. The name is a privilege not a right.

You miss the point. It doesnt matter what she says, its her right to say it that is in question. I personally don't agree with her viewpoint but i accept her right to state her opinion. What gets my gander up most of all is the hypocrisy of the whole thing. As i said in an earlier post, for years the gay lobby demanded tolerance & understanding but now it seems if anyone voices an alternate viewpoint they are pilloried.

of course she has the right to rattle on like a drain, but like everyone else it is beholden to be respectful. 

You mention tolerance. I do not see a scintilla of tolerance in her views/statements/marketing activities.

Personally I do not see any sense in same sex marriage. I am opposed to religion/state sanctioned marriage. I am disappointed gay folks have gone down the retrogressive step of demanding marriage. Better they debate out the folly of marriage per se and the zealots who privilege it. But that is clearly not going to happen.

horace wrote:of course she has the right to rattle on like a drain, but like everyone else it is beholden to be respectful. 

You mention tolerance. I do not see a scintilla of tolerance in her views/statements/marketing activities.

Personally I do not see any sense in same sex marriage. I am opposed to religion/state sanctioned marriage. I am disappointed gay folks have gone down the retrogressive step of demanding marriage. Better they debate out the folly of marriage per se and the zealots who privilege it. But that is clearly not going to happen.

Nor is there any from the gay lobby. That is my point. For years they banged on about being shown tolerance for their views but it seems they have no tolerance for anyone who exercises their right to an alternate view...Hypocrisy at its worst.

Big Dog wrote:

horace wrote:that is not persecution....persecution is her going after gays.

She was good with the racquet but has clearly lost the respect of many people who take exception to her extremist views (be these genuinely held or just for money).

Of course the stadium should be renamed. Court does not own it. The name is a privilege not a right.

You miss the point. It doesnt matter what she says, its her right to say it that is in question. I personally don't agree with her viewpoint but i accept her right to state her opinion. What gets my gander up most of all is the hypocrisy of the whole thing. As i said in an earlier post, for years the gay lobby demanded tolerance & understanding but now it seems if anyone voices an alternate viewpoint they are pilloried.  

Called free speech.

What if she had taken an extreme political stance. Rename the Court because you don't agree with her politics?

taipan wrote:

Big Dog wrote:

horace wrote:that is not persecution....persecution is her going after gays.

She was good with the racquet but has clearly lost the respect of many people who take exception to her extremist views (be these genuinely held or just for money).

Of course the stadium should be renamed. Court does not own it. The name is a privilege not a right.

You miss the point. It doesnt matter what she says, its her right to say it that is in question. I personally don't agree with her viewpoint but i accept her right to state her opinion. What gets my gander up most of all is the hypocrisy of the whole thing. As i said in an earlier post, for years the gay lobby demanded tolerance & understanding but now it seems if anyone voices an alternate viewpoint they are pilloried.  

Called free speech.

What if she had taken an extreme political stance. Rename the Court because you don't agree with her politics?

Quite right Taips. The sanctimonious self righteousness of the PC minorities knows no bounds.