Nope I said he is free to say what he wants as are you or I. Because you may not agree with it doesn't mean he da not say it??

Offence is taken and not given if your offended by what he says then that's just too bad facts don't care about feelings mate he is free to say what he wants until people like you take away even more freedoms people have died to protect.

Not hate speach they're his beliefs and opinions

You have been listening to too much Ricky Gervais old boy, of course Folau`s comments are going to cause offence, your snowflake comment is just completely ridiculous in this case, I don`t see how anyone that is offended by Folau`s comments could be labelled a snowflake...

Listen, nut jobs who preach extremist ideals have lead to millions of deaths. Your grandad didnt fight in the war so people could preach hatred, they fought for the opposite. Nazi ideals became a frightening reality.

Okay, so as long as you believe something, you can say what you want to? Thanks for clearing this up.

Folau has a right to his beliefs, just as people have a right to criticise them. Personally I blame the media outlets printing his views, they know that he’ll be controversial and cause uproar.

I’m not a religious person, and I don’t bash those who are, but I would love to see Folau provide undeniable proof that “God” was behind these bushfires as a punishment.

That is the worst comment yet, you're getting hysterical as is the way with the easily outraged.

The best defence I ever heard for TRUE freedom of speech was this.

On seeing a red poppy being burned by some extremist, perhaps even the sort you like, when asked why he the seller wasn't outraged he answered thus...

'I fought for two years in the deserts of North Africa so they can live in a country where they are free to do that, it hurts me but real freedom always comes with a little pain'.

So if I were you I'd drop the 'grandad' nonsense.

OK so the answer is ultimately change the law so we all hade the same vies beliefs and opinions and lock up those who don't agree yes that's the kind of stuff my grandad did fight to stop.

I have enough belief that the majority of the population don't agree with what he says and would offer up a reasoned argument with him about his beliefs and opinions, and won't be swayed by his arguments.

I am afraid you already have your answer to this particular case, the answer is the law is already there as a deterrent to people that spread such hatred (In the UK that is)... Again, look it up as there are numerous acts that cover this as hate speech and it can carry a prison sentence.

Yes but what he said was not hate speach you may twist it to suit your own view but it was not hate speach nor was he inciting anybody.

Just because you are not directing it at an individual, it does not mean it is not hate speech. We have kids (And adults for that matter) all over the world, still figuring themselves out committing suicide because of comments like this and you are happy to label it freedom of speech under the guise of Christianity?

He has stated his beleif. I do not agree with what he has said but we (should) be able to express our beliefs as long as it does not incite racism or violence.
I'm sure most people do not agree with what he says but we must not silence him just because his view is outdated and does not fit the 'perceived norm'.

Yes 100%

Sho me proof that they are committing suicide from what he has said or the likes of him. Interesting fact the suicide rate in transgender ppl is 40% studies have shown that it doesn't make a difference if they are accepted or not it stats the same these peolke have mental health problems a d until we address that the suicide rate will be high irrespective if what some rugby player is saying.

Did Folau mention transgender people ? or have you chucked that one in for effect.
Just for balance, did we have bushfires and droughts before same sex marriage was permitted ?

I think it's far to say that bushfires along with droughts predate the human species, I wonder why they were "sent"

haha. Twitter generation? I'm a bit older than that. What I wrote wasn't 'outrage' it was just a passing thought, but good on you for pigeon-holing me and what I wrote.

I mentioned that religion is a bit nuts, and you became outraged, called me a fascist, accused me exactly of what you're doing in the reply, and I'm the internet snowflake?!?!?

Jesus wept.

What it comes down to is I and many others see this as hate speech and therefore see the wider implications of this (not just one person with an ‘opinion’) and you don’t.
So, say a similar comment were made in relation to black people and Grenfell, would that still be free speech?

By the way, answer yes and you’re a dck, answer no and you’re the same but a hypocritical one.

Folou didn’t come into anyone’s house and said those words, he gave them in a sermon didn’t he? That was broadcast on Facebook? How many of you watched it live? None, stop being offended by everything.

He might sound batpoop crazy but I agree totally with the anti abortion stance, it’s legalised killing of babies.

Is it

To be fair if we were to find a single cell organism on Mars the moon wherever it would be all over the news about life on Mars etc yet its not life when its on earth in a womb??

On the flip side, people call for euthanasia. Is that not murder?

Virtually all religions have a long and shameful history of taking control of women's reproductive rights - hence why some of them fight so hard against the right to have an abortion; closely followed by their weird obsessions with who is sticking what into who, chopping bits off babies, and what you have to eat on what day of the week. It's genuinely baffling to me that this outdated nonsense still persists - and that idiots like Isreal Folau haven't realised that his crackpot beliefs are self-evidently life-limiting; hence his loss of a multi-million dollar livelihood.

Reproductive rights? Women’s rights? They can dress it up all they want they are deciding to kill a baby inside the womb.

They use the argument to say what if they are raped by their disabled brother and that child might put the mother’s life at risk. What bull plop. What they mean is they want to shag anyone they want and if they get caught they get a second chance and treat is as a secondary last chance form of contraception.

They ain’t kidding anyone and if they don’t want the child there’s plenty of couples out there who struggle to have children who will take on the child.

What an appalling, disgusting comment that is.

You shouldn’t be appalled at the comment, you should be appalled at the process.

Which process? Your process of generalising and degrading rape victims?