The problem is in saying she has rights at the same time you are denying her rights when you accuse her of lying and being a bad person. Under a secular view acknowledging peoples rights means acknowledging those rights despite disagreeing with them. It doesnt mean then attacking a person for having those rights as you have just negated her right for holding those views. You dont hold the truth to morality so you can personally disagree with Court but you cannot say she is absolutely wrong.
It does make her a victim if people threaten her and destroy her ruptation. That goes beyond expressing a view and into breaching rights and the law and actually acting violent and abusive.
Margaret Court's nephew says people have bashed on his door and attacked the children at his junior tennis academy
Tennis academy kids 'targeted with abuse' after Margaret Court comments
Look this is going way beyond what the original point is which is do people have a right to express opposing views on same sex marriage. You are trying to inject other issues which have little to do with this and which muddy the waters. You are using a logical fallacy (Ad Hominum) to try and destroy Courts reputation so that you can win the argument that no one has the right to express their view on opposing same sex marriage.
OK I agree that her words are wrong in my opinion and not the best way to express Christian belief. I would not do things that way. But this should not negate the point that people have a right to express opposing views about same sex marriage and homosexuality.
What I am saying is even people who have not expressed horrible views like Court are being attacked for expressing their views opposing same sex marriage, homosexuality or transgender ideology. I used J. K. Rowlings as the example. She is a decent person but was attacked verbally, and people took actions to destroy her reputation. This went further than people just expressing views.
In light of the above where her nephews Tennis accadamy and kids were attacked and Courts Charity is descriminated against which caused disadvantaged people to suffer is actual actions that cause harm. Why cannot Margaret Court and anyone who is connected to her be a victim if the attacks are physical actions that harm people. It seems in all other situations people who are attacked physically are seen as victims. It seems your personal views against Court are biasing your views or other situations where perhaps there is a genuine case of harm done.
But she has not said that. You are injecting an interpretation of what you think what she says means. She actually said that homosexuality is caused by sexual molestation and emtional abuse from parents or care givers in general. She is offering a reason why a child may end up with issues about their sexuality and gender identity. You are twisting what was said.
But like I said you are injecting unrelated issues to try and destroy Courts credibility so that you can also destroy the arguemnet that she or others have the right to express their views against same sex marriage or transgender ideology.
OK lets keep things in context here. First in saying that Court has a right to express her views even if you or I or anyone disagrees with them and even think they are over the top is not agreeing with those views. You seem to not be able to seperate these two different positions. As I said many people disagree with Christians views on same sex marriage and homosexuality but they respect peoples rights to express those views.
Second I was saying that within the religious views like anything including politics people can have more fundelmental views than others. But that doesnt mean that people cannot express those more fundelmental views. Nor does it mean by me saying this that I am supporting or agreeing with Courts more fundemental views. All I was saying is that basically some of Courts views though more radical are based on the Bible. Its just about how people express those views.
But by whose judgemnet do you say she is lying and bigoted. Isnt that just your opinion. What if Court doesnt think she is lying or bigoted. Isnt that the way cultural and religious inclusion works that everyone one believes truely that their beliefs and morals are best and right for the world. Who is to say they are really lies, bad or wrong in the overall scheme of truth. For example what right have you to say that Court is lying or wrong. What do you base this on. Is it your personal opinion. Is it the opinion of western society. What objective evidence do you have.
By the way I am not siding with Court in saying the above. I am just trying to explain the way different views can seem wrong to different groups because they have a different way of seeing the world and no ones world view is more right or factual than anothers. Otherwise the person or group that claims that others are wrong and they are right are playing God.
I agree but it is not free from people responding back with their views that they think its wrong and hateful. But thats as far as it should go. When people start taking actions and threatening and destroying people that goes being views to hateful action and according to the law people should do that.
OK but thats her view, a legal view to express even if some thing its bigoted and hateful.
But how can they be false when even mainstream medical authorities and professional biodies agree with me as I have posted in the previous posts. You have not responded to these links which to me shows you know I am right but have no anser. So the only way to deal with this is to attack the source which is a logical fallacy (ad hominem).
