ABC journalist Kerry O’Brien has rejected his Order of Australia award to protest the decision to give tennis great Margaret Court Australia’s highest award.
Mrs Court was awarded “for eminent service to tennis as an internationally acclaimed player and record-holding grand slam champion, and as a mentor of young sportspersons.”
However, the 78-year-old, now a minister in a Pentecostal Church, has been the subject of relentless criticism for being a Christian and subscribing to a biblical definition of marriage and sexuality.
Mrs Court has said she has only ever reiterated what the Bible says on the subject of marriage and sexuality.
“I should always be able to say my views biblically, being a pastor and helping people with marriages and family. And I’ll never change those views,” she said. “I have nothing against people – I love the people. We have them come into our community services, all kinds – whether they’re gay, transgender, whatever they are.”
O’Brien wrote to the governor general’s secretary on Sunday saying there is something “fundamentally wrong” with the honours system given the “deeply insensitive and divisive decision” to appoint Mrs Court a Companion of the Order of Australia.
Earlier this week, Clara Tuck Meng Soo, one of the first GPs in Australia to undergo a gender transition, handed back the Order of Australia Medal he received in 2016 for his work with the LGBTQ community.
Soo explained: “I do not want to be seen as supporting the values that the Council for the Order of Australia seem to be supporting with this promotion of Mrs Margaret Court.”
O’Brien said Soo “epitomises the true spirit of the Order of Australia.”
Victorian Premier Dan Andrews also weighed in on Twitter last week, describing Mrs Court’s Christian faith as “disgraceful” and unworthy of oxygen.
“I don’t want to give this person’s disgraceful, bigoted views any oxygen,” he said.
“But when others insist on rewarding them with this country’s highest honour — I think it’s worth saying again: Grand Slam wins don’t give you some right to spew hatred and create division. Nothing does,” Andrews added.
Once again we see rank bigotry, hatred, and intolerance cloaked in the language of acceptance, love, and inclusivity.
But slapping the label “bigot” on someone you disagree with doesn’t make you less of a bigot yourself.
The Oxford Dictionary defines bigotry as, “intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.” So, who is the intolerant one in this picture?
It becomes more evident if you simply reverse the ideologies and imagine a Christian refusing to be named alongside anyone who identified as LGBTQ.
And yet, despite the fact that these sorts have a zero-tolerance for diversity in thought, belief, and opinion, the mainstream media will continually portray them as beacons of unconditional love.
But as soon as you introduce an individual who doesn’t necessarily affirm their ideology, we quickly discover how intolerant of “diversity” they truly are.
What they want is complete ideological submission from Christians, and they have no intention of tolerating any public figure that refuses to bend the knee.
Would Dan Andrews refer to the Muslim view of marriage and sexuality as disgraceful, bigoted, and unworthy of oxygen? Would Kerry O’Brien refuse to be named alongside a Jew?
So, why the double-standards? Simply put, Dan Andrews, Kerry O’Brien, and the rest of Mrs Court’s critics are exactly what they profess to be opposing.
You don’t have to agree with Mrs Court’s Christian views, but don’t pretend you’re not a raging bigot if you want to exclude her from society because you find her personal beliefs intolerable.
Bigotry in the name of anti-bigotry is still bigotry, just with rank hypocrisy thrown into the mix. Not that we’ve come to expect anything more from the Christophobic left.