Would You Support Law That Protects Religious Discrimination?

orangetrain on 04/11/2021 - 09:38
Last edited 04/11/2021 - 09:39

The three issues that will face opposition within the Liberal party room are the inclusion of a “Folau clause” that would give legal protection to someone expressing a statement of belief; conscientious objection provisions that would allow health practitioners to refuse to provide certain treatment; and the ability for religious institutions to discriminate against staff on the basis of religion to maintain a “faith-based ethos”.

But Wertheim said it was larger faiths including Christian churches which “want to preference members of their own faith in staffing” while Jewish institutions were “far too small to have that luxury”.

It looks like the Christians want the power to protect future Folaus who would like gays to die, allow doctors to refuse to treat people and would like to officially discriminate when hiring staff. The Religious Freedom bill that is being pushed through by Australian Christian Lobby and more. After all, the Hillsong supporter PM Scott Morrison, says he got the calling from god.

In case you thought that Scott Morrison and the LNP are doing nothing in government. Here it is. There's not much one can do about this. I feel bad for the people affected, including women and young girls who face a future where their doctor can refuse the morning pill just because, religion.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/religious-grou…

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2021/apr/26…

Education & Work

Comments

                  • dizzle on 05/11/2021 - 11:22
                    +2

                    @Miss B: Apparently it's about free will…until something else happens and then it's Gods will.

                    My uncle is deeply regligious, and while I have no problem with him, this is the area I can't bring up. Everything good that happens to him, it's Gods will. Anything bad that happens to other people (like being gay), it's because they weren't pious enough and they just need to pray more.

                    • Miss B on 05/11/2021 - 11:28
                      +3

                      @dizzle: If it's free will, it means that all people choose their sexuality. I would posit that if people need to actively choose their sexuality in order to be heterosexual, they may just be a little less heterosexual than they try to tell people.

                  • Almost Banned on 05/11/2021 - 12:17
                    +1

                    @Miss B: Well, maybe one day you will get to ask Him.
                    In the meantime I think most people of faith believe that God created people - and each one of them has various issues to deal with. For some it may be a propensity towards addictive behaviours or substance abuse, to others it may be sexual promiscuity, to others it might be avarice, to others it might be anger.
                    Everyone gets challenges and temptations - its how they deal with them that counts. At least that's what I assume most people of faith would say.

                    • screensaver on 05/11/2021 - 12:28

                      @Almost Banned: God created gays with an especially heavy cross to bear

                      • Almost Banned on 05/11/2021 - 12:28

                        @screensaver: Tell that to an alcoholic or drug addict.

                        • screensaver on 05/11/2021 - 12:31

                          @Almost Banned: they didnt choose their cross, how many times do i have to say that. They have as much right to live and love as you do, and not be criticised for it in any way

                          • Almost Banned on 05/11/2021 - 12:33

                            @screensaver: Really, you don't think some people are born with a proclivity towards addictive behaviours?
                            You ought to tell the NIH, because they seem to disagree with you.
                            Of course they have the right to live - as much as anyone else.
                            They also have the 'right' to love (of course there is no such actual legal right, but for the sake of borad personal freedoms let's just say there is one), but you do not have the right to say that your behaviour is not a sin according to the doctrines of various faiths.

                            • Miss B on 05/11/2021 - 13:05

                              @Almost Banned: Have you ever met a religious person who follows their religious texts 100%, never does anything contrary (or at least genuinely does everything possible not to) and judges people equally for every single thing they say not to do? I've never met anyone like this is all, the judgemental hateful people choose one or two (sometimes a few) very specific things based on their own personal beliefs. If it had anything to do with their religious texts and being devoted to them they'd be far more liberal with their judgement.

                            • screensaver on 05/11/2021 - 13:12

                              @Almost Banned: but in this case it is not behaviour, it is who they are, their very essence, that they were issued with by nature. Therefore they are innocent of sin as a new born baby, because they were issued with this as a new born baby. An innocent person is not a sinner

                      • dizzle on 05/11/2021 - 13:03
                        +1

                        @screensaver: Jesus bore a heavy cross too….Maybe he was gay :)

        • sheamas88 on 04/11/2021 - 18:07

          If you voice an unpopular opinion on your private social media and your employer doesn't like it, would you be ok with being canned for it?

          If I had a contract that explicitly said as such and I signed it, then yes. If my private life has a direct impact on my employer then also yes.

          I am against your employer exercising control over what you do in your own time on your personal fora.

          So why does this not also apply to religious employers like your "jewish school" above? If I'm a teacher at such a school then they found out I was gay through my social media, even if I never brought it up at school or with students then you would say it's wrong to fire the teacher?

          • screensaver on 04/11/2021 - 20:03

            @sheamas88: yes

          • Almost Banned on 05/11/2021 - 01:44

            @sheamas88: The comparison is inapt.
            In your school example you would not be sacked for the post, or even the sentiment behind it. You would be sacked for your failure to abide by the school's ethos.
            As for your first example, as you will see from my post above, there was no specific part of Issy's contract that forbade him from quoting the Bible on his social media. In fact, there was no specific part of the Code of Conduct - which was only incorporated into his contract by reference - that forbade it. The Code merely made some fairly bland and uncontroverial motherhood statements about the issue.
            If a general obligation to 'play nice' means you give up the right to express your faith in your own time, then almost every employer could sack almost every employee of faith - as it is a widely held duty of the faithful to warn their neighbours, and a widely held requirement for employees not to do anything that reflects negatively on their employers.
            In fact, if some of the mob on here are an example, simply attending Church would be justification enough for termination.

    • brendanm on 04/11/2021 - 18:26

      Isn't that a form of slavery

      No.

    • MessyG on 04/11/2021 - 22:06
      +5

      Doctors who are uncomfortable with performing abortions tend not to perform abortions. And if you go to a GP asking for a referral, and they are uncomfortable with that, they can opt out of giving the referral, but have to direct you to someoen who can help you. It has worked well for a long time, not sure why we need this legislation.

      Seems to be about protecting sportspeoples right to say gays burn in hell…

  • screensaver on 04/11/2021 - 12:36

    A gay person can be a Christian too. Just being gay is not a sin. And there are many statements in the Bible that are archaic. So it cannot be the law of the land.
    Chtistian bigots should read Micah 6:8 To act justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly. Problem is they dont know that justly means fairly.

    • trilby on 04/11/2021 - 14:21
      +5

      Many 'religious' people just cherry pick what the bible says to support their view, but don't mention the bits they don't like. For example, it's a sin to tattoo or wear mixed materials. I just think, as you say, much of it is now archaic. There were many reasons to enforce rules and regulations due to hygiene and disease fears that are irrelevant now.

      • [Deactivated] on 05/11/2021 - 06:44
        +1

        Yeah this is the worst part about religion to me, the differences in what people believe which clearly shows theres some sham to it

        • ds311 on 05/11/2021 - 07:32

          Woah people have different interpretations of something because they're individuals and have different ways of looking at the same thing. Must be a scam 🤪

          • trilby on 05/11/2021 - 10:42
            +1

            @ds311: How could you have different interpretations of this passage - seems very clear to me.
            Deuteronomy 22:11: “You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together.” Leviticus 19:19: Nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.”

    • SlickMick on 05/11/2021 - 10:06

      It used to be.

      The motherland put in place a pretty good legal system, and it was not secular - it was very much based on the bible.

      We're rapidly moving away from this, and we're seeing a world in a mess. I'm not saying there's a correlation, just an observation.

      • Miss B on 05/11/2021 - 11:10
        +2

        The good old days when women needed permission to do anything and indigenous Australians weren't people.

        • SlickMick on 05/11/2021 - 16:09

          but over all, do you reckon things are getting better?

  • ozhunter on 04/11/2021 - 13:25
    +6

    to protect future Folaus who would like gays to die

    Did he say that?

    • screensaver on 04/11/2021 - 13:42
      +3

      he used the bible to justify his belief that gays are doing something wrong. When they are born with their sexuality pre determined through no fault of their own. So they are made to feel guilt, shame and fear. And pollies think thats okay? I act justly to this one and stand up to God and the Bible. It is not fair or just

      • weezlebub on 04/11/2021 - 14:41

        actually, i think he said that marriage is between a man and a woman …

        but these lefties would see "all gays must die" as the EXACT same thing

        • screensaver on 04/11/2021 - 14:46
          +2

          well that shows how ignorant he is. Because there is a whole section of the population who are born with their sexual orientation towards the same gender so marriage cannot just be between a man and a woman. Its like saying normal men and women are the only ones that matter and the rest dont

          • weezlebub on 04/11/2021 - 15:24
            +3

            @screensaver: actually, the word "marriage" is a religious word that became main stream to the point that even non-religious people use it to describe their commitment to each other (the vows, celebrants are just copying what priests said, rings, etc.)

            Since the word marriage is a christian - religious one, and they don't believe in homosexual relationships, they can call themselves marriage, but they wouldn't be accepted under the traditional paradigm …

            As for everything between the two genders, that gets really confusing, so lets just call it men, women and transgender, since they're about 0.1% of the population, it's not relevant, they can do whatever they want and i wish them all the best - but they're not the norm and not statistically significant enough to be worth discussing

            • screensaver on 04/11/2021 - 15:38
              +8

              @weezlebub: typical dismissal of minorities. The word marriage means union. Religious thinks it belongs to them, it doesnt. And Wouldnt be accepted, speaks volumes. Thats what this is all about, inclusion and exclusion, whos in and whos out. The majority think they are normal and everyone else isnt. The Bible sheilds so many bigots, but God sees into the heart, and thats what matters. There are other passages in the Bible that are not accepted today, but these are selectively overlooked by those who think they are justified

        • SlickMick on 05/11/2021 - 10:15
          +1

          Stop letting facts get in the way of a good story. Falou is evil, as are all who believe as he does. We must silence them.
          We are now elightened and know better than some old book clearly full of contradictions and evil messages.

          See how great the world is now as we move away from such ancient ideas.

          • [Deactivated] on 07/11/2021 - 15:08

            @SlickMick: Perhaps the word you are looking for is 'sinner' not 'evil'
            Israel, I think, would be the first to put his hand up to admit that as true.

      • ozhunter on 04/11/2021 - 14:56
        +1

        Ok so Folau didn't say that.

        When they are born with their sexuality pre determined through no fault of their own.

        Not set it in stone as some like to think. The fact that people switch sides is quite telling. Is it that much of an issue if someone else thinks what your doing is wrong?

        • screensaver on 04/11/2021 - 14:58
          +1

          its called orientation, and cannot be switched. Those who swing both ways, are oriented to do that.

          • weezlebub on 04/11/2021 - 15:25
            -3

            @screensaver: yeah, your gender theory sounds nice, until you start talking about people being orientated towards children, once that enters the equation, we should just kill the lot of them

            • screensaver on 04/11/2021 - 15:42
              +2

              @weezlebub: we are not talking about that, it is about consenting adults. There are many straight pedophiles

            • sarahlump on 05/11/2021 - 12:26
              -1

              @weezlebub: please go jump in the lake. 'the gays all (profanity) kids' is old and tired please find a new lie to tell.

      • SlavOz on 05/11/2021 - 00:56
        +1

        Let's not equate being gay with choosing to sleep with the same sex. Those are 2 different things.

        Some people are born with sexual arousal of animals or family members, if they chose to act on those desires it would be (profanity) weird, and I don't think "I was born this way" would fly with most people.

        Being born a certain way doesn't mean you can do whatever you want and not face the consequences. I was born straight, but if I sleep with the bosses wife, I'm gonna get fired.

        • screensaver on 05/11/2021 - 01:08
          +4

          they do not have a choice, they had no say in the matter,. Being straight you wouldnt know what its like. Another case of Im okay, to hell with the rest
          And dont equate gayness to bestiality and incest. Thats what the stuffy suits say

        • cashews on 05/11/2021 - 07:40
          +1

          Here come the bigots who want to associate two adults who want to have a consenting sexual relationship with incest and bestiality. These things are not alike in the slightest.

          • SlavOz on 05/11/2021 - 10:07
            -1

            @cashews:

            These things are not alike in the slightest

            Maybe not to you, but others have the right of their own opinion. Religions view sex as a sacred gift designed to procreate or make use of the specially designed parts they posses. For this reason, most religions are against anal sex regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight.

            I don't see why you have a problem with that. Anal sex isn't exactly something that's widely accepted by society. It's taboo, and there are medical/scientific/biological reasons for that. Most people could float the idea with their partner and they'd get a boot to the face

            BTW, what exactly is the difference between 2 consenting adults having sex and 2 consenting adult siblings having sex?

            • Carmen Sandiego on 05/11/2021 - 11:53

              @SlavOz: In answer to your question - science is the difference. Any children from the second scenario will come out with genetics skewing wildly towards the unfun genetic markers.

              That and the whole ethics thing.

              • SlavOz on 05/11/2021 - 12:31

                @Carmen Sandiego:

                Any children from the second scenario will come out with genetics skewing wildly towards the unfun genetic markers.

                As opposed to the perfectly healthy (non-existent) children created by gay couples? To alleviate this, incest couples could simply use protection and birth control.

                That and the whole ethics thing.

                What ethics? There's nothing inherently immoral about incest. It's just the way society views it. It's 100% subjective, no different to how some people feel about homosexuality.

                Point being is that all of us, either collectively or individually, have standards that we expect others to follow when it comes to sexual behaviour. Acting like you have a right to do whatever you want and not be questioned, shamed, or alienated by others for it is silly. Society does this all time. It's not always logical, but it's the way we operate. Gay people need to grow up and stop thinking that they're the only victims of social pressure.

            • sarahlump on 05/11/2021 - 12:27
              -1

              @SlavOz: slavoz the troll cant get any

            • screensaver on 05/11/2021 - 15:54

              @SlavOz: How gay people have sex is no ones business. Its love they need and want in their lives the same as anyone else.

            • deme on 06/11/2021 - 18:12

              @SlavOz:

              Anal sex isn't exactly something that's widely accepted by society

              Most people could float the idea with their partner and they'd get a boot to the face

              I can't tell if you are into being dominated and pegged or think everyone is pure?

        • fprjet on 05/11/2021 - 12:25

          Is the bosses wife hot?

        • deme on 06/11/2021 - 18:18

          Let's not equate being gay with choosing to sleep with the same sex. Those are 2 different things.

          Some people are born with sexual arousal of animals or family members, if they chose to act on those desires it would be (profanity) weird, and I don't think "I was born this way" would fly with most people.

          Being born a certain way doesn't mean you can do whatever you want and not face the consequences. I was born straight, but if I sleep with the bosses wife, I'm gonna get fired.

          HOLD UP!

          (profanity) your bosses wife is not illegal.
          You want gay sex to be illegal.

          And your rational is not even "heterosexual sex in the missionary possession for the sole purpose of procreation" is the only acceptable form of sex because … er… god?

          But that to you gay sex is so abhorrent you want it to be illegal like (profanity) animals?

          What is wrong with you?

      • SlavOz on 05/11/2021 - 10:49
        +1

        they are born with their sexuality pre determined through no fault of their own.

        And that's not what the Bible or Folau condemned them for.

        The passage he quoted referred to fornication, which is (among many other things) sex outside of marriage. He said all fornicators will go to hell as well, which many people conveniently ignored because they had to push the narrative that this was a targeted attack towards homosexuals. It's nothing but first class self-victimising. Get over yourself.

        Folau did not condemn anyone for the way they were born - he condemned them for their actions. People are born with all sorts of desires or predispositions, doesn't mean you have a free pass to do them without consequences.

        • deme on 06/11/2021 - 18:22
          +1

          Folau did not condemn anyone for the way they were born - he condemned them for their actions.

          LOL LOOK AT HIS INSTAGRAM dude it clearly shows what he thinks

          https://www.instagram.com/p/BwEWt2uHcLI/

          • SlavOz on 06/11/2021 - 19:23
            -1

            @deme: Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, thieves, atheists…what do all those have in common?

            They're all actions and lifestyle choices, they're not inherent characteristics one is born with. You can't be born to be a thief or sleep with men…it's something you choose to do.

            • deme on 07/11/2021 - 13:29

              @SlavOz:

              Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, thieves, atheists…what do all those have in common?

              They're all actions and lifestyle choices

              I'd say atheism is not an action nor a choice but rather lack of one or default.

              "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities." [wiki]

              Being a Christian is a choice though, in fact the bible says to stick to it even in fact of persecution etc.

              If being a Christian wasn't a choice then the first chapter of the new testament is false.

              What's your problem with "[men] sleep[ing] with men"?
              I can understand thieves they deprive people of liberty.

              But according to your religion it not for you to judge, but God.

              Also the whole thing that everyone is born in sin blah blah.. jesus will take the sin for you as long as you believe he exists.

              Why don't you follow Jesus's teachings and not the rants of other people in the bible and help people see Jesus.

              Jesus's word actually says that drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, thieves" will go to Heaven if they believe in him.

              To top if off, why is gay sex so abhorrent to you?
              If we take Christianity as true then it was God who designed humans in his image and put a (profanity) g-spot in the arse of men.

              TL;DR Jesus says you can take it up the arse everyday and as long as you believe he is the son of God etc etc you will go to Heaven.

              • SlavOz on 07/11/2021 - 13:41
                -1

                @deme:

                I'd say atheism is not an action nor a choice but rather lack of one or default.

                That's more like an agnostic. Most atheists consciously declare that God does not exist. Not because they don't care about religion, but they have thought about it and decided that the absence of a God is what makes the most sense in life.

                What's your problem with "[men] sleep[ing] with men"?

                No real problem, I just don't think it should be celebrated or endorsed by the state. Gay marriage serves no purpose. Straight marriage needs to funded and endorsed because it bears the future of society (children).

                it was God who designed humans in his image and put a (profanity) g-spot in the arse of men.

                It was also God who made Hitler lonely and depressed, and it was also God that made pdeopholes attracted to children.

                It's almost like you're starting to understand that just because you were born with a certain desire or fetish, it doesn't give you a free pass to do whatever you want. Self control and all that.

                Jesus says you can take it up the arse everyday and as long as you believe he is the son of God etc etc you will go to Heaven.

                Well, I could go into a deep theological assessment of why this is incorrect, but I'll spare it for now. You're simply wrong. I would urge people to follow your own advice and listen to the word of established priests, scholars, historians, and philosophers on the Church's stance on gay marriage rather than the rant of some guy on Oz bargain who clearly has no (profanity) clue.

                • deme on 07/11/2021 - 13:47
                  +1

                  @SlavOz:

                  That's more like an agnostic.

                  Nope I just cited my source mate. You are wrong.

                  It was also God who made Hitler lonely and depressed,

                  Are you saying God put a g-spot in your arse for the same reason he made the holocaust?

                  philosophers on the Church's stance on gay marriage

                  Mate Church != Jesus.

                  Jesus > * (according to Christianity)

                  • SlavOz on 07/11/2021 - 13:52

                    @deme:

                    Nope I just cited my source mate. You are wrong.

                    You cited your personal interpretation of a sentence from Wikipedia. That's not a source mate.

                    Are you saying God put a g-spot in your arse for the same reason he made the holocaust?

                    Yeah I'm done with the trolling bait.

                    Mate Church != Jesus.

                    The Church is based on thousands of years of understanding and appreciation of Biblical teachings, as well as countless saints and dedicated scholars who have unanimously come to the same conclusion.

                    You are free to believe they're all wrong and your individual interpretation is correct, but stop pretending like you have anybcredibility.

                    • deme on 07/11/2021 - 13:54
                      +1

                      @SlavOz:

                      You cited your personal interpretation of a sentence from Wikipedia. That's not a source mate.

                      personal interpretation

                      I quoted, word for word, without a single change.

                      Yeah I'm done with the trolling bait.

                      You are the one that brought up Hitler.

                      Stop hating gays ffs.

                • Ughhh on 07/11/2021 - 14:17
                  +1

                  @SlavOz:

                  It was also God who made Hitler lonely and depressed,

                  Source?
                  Did God chose to punish you by not proving you with coconut water in vending machines and giving you alopecia? What did you do? 😮

                  • SlavOz on 07/11/2021 - 14:26

                    @Ughhh: I beed an adult and didn't cry over my problems because "I was born this way!"

                    I could've sued my employer for not being accommodating enough of people born with a love for coconut water. I could've rallied them to add C to the LGBT movement because I'm an under-represented minority.

                    But yeah, being an adult beats crying and moaning every day of the week. It's just a shame we pander to the most childish and vocal among us by running to their aid whenever they throw their toys out of the pram.

                    • Ughhh on 07/11/2021 - 14:31
                      +1

                      @SlavOz:

                      But yeah, being an adult beats crying and moaning every day of the week

                      But crying and moaning is exactly what youve been doing. Lol?

                • Ughhh on 07/11/2021 - 18:51
                  +1

                  @SlavOz:

                  Gay marriage serves no purpose. Straight marriage needs to funded and endorsed because it bears the future of society (children).

                  Oh, funding like childcare subsidies??

                  Do you think if there was more funding for straight marriage, all the homosexuals will just turn straight?

                  • SlavOz on 07/11/2021 - 19:09

                    @Ughhh: It's not about turning people straight. They can keep gaying it up for as long as they want. But when you expect society to take part in your sexual lifestyle by funding/sanctioning your relationship, it's not as simple as "agree or you're a bigot". People have a right to discuss where their money and resources are going.

                    I just don't think gay marriage had a place in our laws, just like I don't feel relationships of incest should be written into our laws.

                    • Ughhh on 07/11/2021 - 19:58
                      +1

                      @SlavOz:

                      But when you expect society to take part in your sexual lifestyle by funding/sanctioning your relationship,

                      What kind of funding are homosexuals taking?

                  • screensaver on 07/11/2021 - 19:10
                    +1

                    @Ughhh: those children that are born, a percentage of them will be gay. So they are the future of society too

                    • Ughhh on 07/11/2021 - 20:00
                      +1

                      @screensaver:

                      a percentage of them will be gay. So they are the future of society too

                      Yes. But Slavozs point is that those gay children, will not bear any children- the future of society, hence "Gay marriage serves no purpose. "

                      • screensaver on 07/11/2021 - 20:05
                        +1

                        @Ughhh: but gays are not dying out, even though they dont have children.
                        Marriage in just a love committment between 2 people. So it does have a purpose.

    • orangetrain on 04/11/2021 - 15:29
      -1

      If I think like a crazy Christian, I would read between the lines and have faith in the statements of Israel Folau, His words are that gays should suffer for being gay.

      • ozhunter on 04/11/2021 - 15:32

        Which one of his statements? This one he posted on instagram? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-11/israel-folau-slammed-…

        You realise that it includes everyone who does the wrong thing?

        • orangetrain on 04/11/2021 - 15:44

          Yes, haters gotta hate. Crazy Christian: Lets protect that speech!

          • ozhunter on 04/11/2021 - 16:33
            +2

            @orangetrain: Funny how only the homosexual portion of that post is why many got so riled up, as if it's okay to think that what happens to the other people who make up the rest of the list.

            • SlickMick on 05/11/2021 - 10:38

              @ozhunter: Some people are very defensive on this subject.

              My theory is that when people don't have a good case they fight really hard.
              In this point in history we have weak leadership so minorities rule.

              I think China's use of tanks kinda ruined leadership - no one is willing to put minorities in thier place because they'll be compared to Tiananmen Square.

        • screensaver on 04/11/2021 - 15:44

          its him who is doing the wrong thing, because you cant just quote one section, there are many others

      • inasero on 10/11/2021 - 09:33

        Condeming someone vs. simply stating their beliefs as to the natural consequences of an action are very different. One has self-righteousness as its motivation the other has genuine concern.
        Note he doesn't single out homosexuals, in fact who of us hasn't fallen short of God's perfect standards at some stage in our lives?
        The majority of Christians believe the Bible is very clear that homosexuality is a sin and there are consequences for those choices (as with all other sins), so if someone is offended with that message then it's the Bible and Christianity they should be criticising, rather that Folau

        • screensaver on 10/11/2021 - 14:37

          The first straight couple, Adam and Eve lead us into sin, so its the straight couples fault. God made Adam and Eve, but he also made Adam and Steve, so its his fault, You dont need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

  • singlemalt72 on 04/11/2021 - 14:08
    +1

    We already have laws to protect religious discrimination, in fact we allow religions to discriminate, the proposed new laws only seek to allow religions to discriminate even more.

  • AussieDaddy on 04/11/2021 - 14:46
    +1

    We're regressing as a society, aren't we? It's sad in this day and age we're still dealing with these old superstitions. The more we separate church and state the better.

    • cashews on 05/11/2021 - 07:41
      +2

      We're becoming more like the US every day, that is detrimental to our society.

    • inasero on 10/11/2021 - 09:36

      Which is the outcome of this proposed legislation - or would you prefer that the state has the right to legislate on the beliefs and practices of the church (and other religious organisations) (and by corollary, vice versa)?

  • tisRmac on 04/11/2021 - 19:11

    Priests become mandatory reporters under the law for suspected or known child abuse here in WA as of next year. About time.

    https://thewest.com.au/news/religion-and-belief/legislation-…

    • Munki on 05/11/2021 - 12:16
      +1

      Are they going to report themselves are they?

    • jerrus on 05/11/2021 - 12:16

      Right and the result of this will be nothing. Priests have been jailed for murder and not revealed that the actual murder confessed so I don't think the threat of jail/fines will compel them to break the seal. They literally believe they will go to hell if they don't confess to breaking the seal and that is a sin reserved to the Papacy to confess.

      When I studied legislation 101 they talked about how laws should be assessed on their likley outcome and this at best will result in priests being locked up not additional child abusers being caught.

      • tisRmac on 05/11/2021 - 22:18
        +1

        A pessimistic and broad stroked view, both of you. You cannot, with certainty, say that this won't result in a positive impact on some level. Just because most won't report it does not mean all won't report. And atleast there are reprocussions for not reporting. I'd rather see a priest who failed to report dragged through the courts if it comes to light they knew or likely knew and did nothing, rather than not having that function for society. Tell me you don't?

        • jerrus on 05/11/2021 - 23:00

          If a priest is willing to break the seal to avoid civil penalties then they would most likely break it to save children anyway. Creating a law to compel people to do something they will not do is wrong - it is like punishing conscientious objectors.

          This has been tried in other jurisdictions and no one pushing this has supplied any data or examples to show why/how this change will help or has helped anyone yet.

  • screensaver on 04/11/2021 - 20:08
    +2

    Everyone has a right to a loving partner and no-one has the right to take that away from them.

  • Vote for Pedro on 04/11/2021 - 21:07
    +1

    No. Why should your make believe book allow you to discriminate. Also… if you don’t pay taxes, follow the law, don’t seek exemptions.

  • geosta on 04/11/2021 - 21:46

    Looking forward to seeing the Australian Christian Lobby defending the rights of a Muslim barista refusing to serve David Sharma after this law passes.

  • MessyG on 04/11/2021 - 22:09

    So, a bill that allows hate speech only from religious people? They wont mind extreme Muslims saying all the things extreme Muslims say with impunity then?

    So if someone says or does something out of line from the values of the organisation they have agreed to work for, the organisation has to keep them? So much for small government eh.

    • SlavOz on 05/11/2021 - 00:59
      +1

      I agree, if you don't follow the company's rules and values, they should be able to fire you.

      Makes perfect sense that LGBT people should be fired from Christian schools then. What's the issue?

      • screensaver on 05/11/2021 - 01:17

        I doubt they would want to work there anyway, Who would want to be surrounded with bigots

        • SlavOz on 05/11/2021 - 10:10

          Clearly they would since they always complain about being fired from these places.

        • jerrus on 05/11/2021 - 12:18

          Anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot?

      • MessyG on 05/11/2021 - 14:59

        Careful there - I said says or does something out of line with their values. Being gay is not an action. You can't be fired for being gay any more than you can be fired for being black, or white, or left handed. The way you are born should not be discriminated against by anyone. If you worked for a Christian organisation and turned around and said "straight people should burn in hell", then yeah, fire away.

      • Vote for Pedro on 06/11/2021 - 19:28

        My company is inclusive and supports lbgtiq+

        There are many who don’t support the companies values in that regard. Should the company be able to dismiss those workers?

        • SlavOz on 06/11/2021 - 20:26

          Yes, they already do. Go work at one of the banks and mention in the interview you don't support gay marriage because you're a Christian. You won't last long. I know a handful of people who were fired because they were asked in the office to attend the company's sponsored Mardi Gras event and they said "no thanks, I don't support that".

          This religious law is simply giving religious organisations the same right that literally every company has. People get fired all the time over their social, political, or religious beliefs…as long as the company is smart enough to hide it behind some bullshit excuse like "cultural incompatibility".

          • Vote for Pedro on 06/11/2021 - 22:52

            @SlavOz: How do you feel about those people that know their company supports a certain cause (such as lgbtqi+ causes) that is against their beliefs but continue to throw away their beliefs for a paycheque?

            • SlavOz on 07/11/2021 - 01:10

              @Vote for Pedro: Me personally, I've left a handful of jobs because I didn't like the company's views, at others I've tried to stay and influence things from the inside (with some levels of success).

              Unless the company specifically asked someone to do something against their beliefs (like promote an LGBT event), I wouldn't expect them to give up their job.

              • Vote for Pedro on 07/11/2021 - 10:39

                @SlavOz: staying at a company simply for the money even though their workplace culture is against one’s values says more about the person than it does about the company.

                Re: influence from inside, isn’t that something that would get a lgbtqi+ person sacked from a religious business?

                Just being gay shouldn’t get you sacked. Not performing certain duties because of your beliefs should (if it cant be reasonably accommodated). For example, my company is mandating vaccination as part of their company policy. Those refusing vax should get sacked if they can’t be reasonably accommodated.

                • SlavOz on 07/11/2021 - 13:32

                  @Vote for Pedro:

                  Re: influence from inside, isn’t that something that would get a lgbtqi+ person sacked from a religious business?

                  Depends how you go about it. My previous role involved writing ad scripts and online content for my employer, and I would often insert subtle references to my social/political/religious beliefs where I could :D

                  Not performing certain duties because of your beliefs should (if it cant be reasonably accommodated). For example, my company is mandating vaccination

                  I very highly doubt that getting vaccinated is in your job description or has anything remotely to do with your duties as an employee.

                  The vaccine mandate is the equivalent of a religious organisation telling all employees they must go to confession or never take birth control pills as the very salvation and wellbeing of humanity depends on it.

                  Obviously that would be a shitshow because most sane people don't think that their employers should be able to influence their religion. It's really no different for medical practices.

                  • Vote for Pedro on 07/11/2021 - 17:48
                    +1

                    @SlavOz: Seems you want to have it either way so long as it aligns with your world view.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join