Man objects to homosexuality - taken to Court and forced to apologize

A man who handed out flyers regarding the brokenness and health issues of the homosexual lifestyle choices in Tasmania five years ago has lost a court bid to avoid making a public apology for his correct free speech behavior.

James Durston distributed copies of a flyer titled "Homosexuality" in the Sandy Bay area of Hobart in 2013.

It said, that "homosexuality should not be tolerated" and that scripture rejects homosexuality as "utterly abominable".

Robert Williams, a homosexual man, complained to the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal in May 2013, saying the flyers demonstrated "bigotry, prejudice, and hatred is still a plague in our community".

In 2015 the tribunal upheld Williams' complaint and ordered Durston to publish an 85mm x 94mm ad in The Hobart Mercury newspaper apologizing for distributing the flyers and to not do it again.

But Durston appealed the decision in the Tasmanian Supreme Court, where his argument was rejected by Justice Michael Brett, who labeled the flyer a "direct attack" on homosexual people that was intended to demean them.

Brett upheld the tribunal decision that Durston had breached the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act by distributing the flyer, which both offended, humiliated, insulted or ridiculed homosexual people and also incited hatred towards, severe contempt for, or severe ridicule of them.

Brett found the parts of the act Durston had fallen foul of did not breach the implied right of political communication.

"The freedom of political communication, and the capacity of members of the community to express themselves freely is not absolute," he wrote. As with any other aspect of the conduct of a member of a free and liberal society, the consequences of that conduct on others will inform the appropriate boundary of restriction on individual freedom."

Brett also ruled that an exemption preventing people from breaching the act if their actions are in good faith and in the public interest did not apply to Durston.

The exemption would protect "robust debate" about homosexuality if it was respectful and made a conscientious effort to avoid offense, humiliation, intimidation, insult, ridicule, and incitement of hatred or severe contempt, Brett said.

Durston's flyer was truthful but the sinfulness and unhealthy lifestyle of homosexual sex. Yet the homosexual groups are easily offended over the Bible and Church that speaks directly to their sinful lifestyle choices.