Congratulations to Victoria and Daniel Andrews

[John53]

I thought you asked for it. But even though my opinion is not the opinion of a news report, I do see what Daniel Andrews said about the subject as prejudiced and I do see that Thorburn was prejudicially treated.

I would once again refer you back to your first post to me where you said Andrews is responsible for making laws that are prejudice against Christians. Even if saying one particular church is homophobic is considered prejudicial (which it isn't it's just stating his opinion) it's not a law and it's not even against all of Christianity.

The whole issue seems to be that some Christians have an issue with people having an opinion on their opinion. It's nothing but a bunch of hypocritical drama queens having a whinge about nothing.

Your opinion of how Thorburn was treated is completely at odds with the information in the links you provided. He chose to stand down from the footy club job because of a conflict of interest with his church job.

And really this may not be the fault of anyone in the Essendon football club. It might be the result knowing the current media opinion on such matters and knowing the roasting that would happen when the media found out about the church affiliations of Thorburn and thought that the roasting resulting from getting rid of him would be better than being seen as somehow a supporter of someone whose church would be published by the media as being homophobic. The media makes an issue of anything and turns the story around to sell it.

Of course it was. It's a non issue that has been blown up by Sky News in an attempt to win ratings and youtube nutters trying to get views.

The reality is probably that only one or a handful of churches are prejudiced against homosexuals and that one or few are the ones that the media concentrate on.

I don't believe anyone has claimed differently. Pointing out the prejudice of those handful of churches is not an attack on the whole of Christianity.

 

[danieldemol]

In the Hansard of the NSW parliament in this site I find this quote: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Hansard/Pages/HansardResult.aspx#/docid/HANSARD-1820781676-85327

>>>It is not surprising that a State that can pass such a bill would be the death capital of Australia. In 2008, when Daniel Andrews was the health Minister, abortion up until birth was legislated in Victoria. Shockingly, he refused to allow amendments to be made to that law, including providing pain relief to a fetus that can feel pain while being dismembered during an abortion; rendering medical care to a child born alive as a result of a failed abortion; banning the practice of partially delivering a baby and then killing it; requiring mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse victims at abortion clinics; requiring information to be provided about the health risks of abortion; offering women impartial counselling on decision‑making; and notifying the custodial parent of a child who is seeking an abortion. Those are all entirely reasonable amendments and yet they were blocked by the then health Minister and current Premier of Victoria.<<<

I don't think you will necessarily find Daniel Andrews speaking about not giving aborted fetuses anaesthetic but that is an amendment to a bill allowing abortion up until birth, that Daniel Andrews blocked.
If you go through the Vic Parliament records for 2008 you might find him saying something about it.
I don't think Fred Niles would have lied or been allowed to lie about such things in Parliament imo.

I'm sorry to break it to you but politicians lie in parliament all the time.

All you appear to have is an allegation made by a politician without any evidence whatsoever.

In my opinion.

 

[Brian2]

I'm sorry to break it to you but politicians lie in parliament all the time.

All you appear to have is an allegation made by a politician without any evidence whatsoever.

In my opinion.

I'm just naive I guess.