The war on religious freedom.

[Pessimistic]

This is not a religious freedom bill, it's a licence to hate

The bill released on Thursday will allow for religious prejudice - and roll back anti-discrimination protections for vulnerable people brought in over 50 years.

www.smh.com.au

Why isnt this subject to a SSM type plebiscite or 'survey"?

All of a sudden politicians are holders of soceities morals after all

Meanwhile the global econony is being vandalised and turning rotten, but I guess religious leaders would like to see us all back in the gutter and happy to accept their 'charity with strings'

 

[NSWCROW]

Why isnt this subject to a SSM type plebiscite or 'survey"?

All of a sudden politicians are holders of soceities morals after all

Meanwhile the global econony is being vandalised and turning rotten, but I guess religious leaders would like to see us all back in the gutter and happy to accept their 'charity with strings'

Great post

 

[Pessimistic]

Its social engineering, but I suppose religions did that first

 

[Kwality]

Why isnt this subject to a SSM type plebiscite or 'survey"?

All of a sudden politicians are holders of soceities morals after all

Meanwhile the global econony is being vandalised and turning rotten, but I guess religious leaders would like to see us all back in the gutter and happy to accept their 'charity with strings'

I agree on a plebiscite BUT are we willing to accept it if it doesnt go the way YOU want. People wont indicate how they feel in a survey & it WILL be manipulated.

Plenty of people dont fall into voting the way the political class do, they think about the issue, dont care if Issy says they are going to hell, support SSM, support religious freedom in principle, dont go to Church, dont accept death to infidels, find political correctness a pain in the khyber ....

I'd add gender to that plebiscite.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Can't wait till all those calling for a religious freedom bill realise they've given the Folau family church (membership approx. 30) carte blanche to propagate their belief that all Catholics are going to burn in hell.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Why isnt this subject to a SSM type plebiscite or 'survey"?

All of a sudden politicians are holders of soceities morals after all

Meanwhile the global econony is being vandalised and turning rotten, but I guess religious leaders would like to see us all back in the gutter and happy to accept their 'charity with strings'

You'd hope, after the Institutional Child Abuse RC, and its horrific findings about the complete absence of human decency in many strands of the church - those that insist on positioning themselves as our moral arbiters, let's not forget - that the churches would discover a bit of humility and shame.

But nup. Full steam ahead for the right to discriminate and force their jaundiced morals down our throats.

 

[Crankyhawk]

You have religious freedom as long as it is secondary to secular law.

Done.

 

[Pessimistic]

And it’s basically ANY religion too. Maybe even made up ones

 

[Pessimistic]

Funny thing is I think religous types are more affronted that the mainstream thinks they are the ones which are cranks. Not the fornicators, the idolaters, the gays

Which is true of course

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You have religious freedom as long as it is secondary to secular law.

Done.

Absolutely. The only sane possibility. (Unless Christians - Protestant, Catholic, Pentecostalist, the various Orthodox strands, Mennonite, Hutterite, Plymouth Brethren, Salvation Army, Coptic, Maronite etc etc) Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Moslems - Sunni and Shi’a - Zoroastrians, Parsis and Sikhs would care to get together and agree on what the fluck they actually believe in.)

 

[Crankyhawk]

And it’s basically ANY religion too. Maybe even made up ones

What stops a racial purity religion from claiming religious immunity “we believe in Han Chinese purity and supremacy now bow down you white gwai Lo scum”

 

[NSWCROW]

 

[Rusty Brookes]

You have religious freedom as long as it is secondary to secular law.

Done.

Which last time I checked, is exactly what we have in Australia.

 

[Colonial]

Which last time I checked, is exactly what we have in Australia.

So why are the nutjobs trying to change it then?

 

[Rusty Brookes]

So why are the nutjobs trying to change it then?

An excellent question which is answered by the question itself. There is no need to change it.

 

[Pessimistic]

Yet they man the barricades if the Dreamtime or Sharia gets any preference.
So its inter sectarian conflict, except this time they included the roman catholics inside the tent

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Yet they man the barricades if the Dreamtime or Sharia gets any preference.
So its inter sectarian conflict, except this time they included the roman catholics inside the tent

And how long is that uneasy alliance going to hold?

Two centuries of Australian sectarianism don't just disappear overnight.

I mean, one of the defining characteristics of Australian history has been the Catho/Proddy divide.

Watch this space.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Some excellent points from Victoria’s EO & Human Rights Commissioner against this ****** up bill that would discriminate against minorities

'Sinful and dirty': Fears for women under new religious freedom laws

Rape victims could be publicly shamed under the Coalition's religious freedom bill, warns Victoria's Human Rights Commissioner.

www.theage.com.au

 

[NSWCROW]

Religious freedom laws will entrench discrimination

Reading Time: 3 minutes Attorney General Christian Porter plans to put a package of ‘religious discrimination’ bills to the parliament by the end of the year. If passed, these laws will weaken protections for women, LGBTIQ people and others. After the victory for marriage equality in 2017, the...

thesocialist.org.au

What they actually want is the freedom to discriminate against anyone who doesn’t conform to their view of society.

This bill is not about protecting ordinary people from discrimination. The forces behind it are the most notorious peddlers of discrimination, division and hate in this country

 

[medusala]

Why isnt this subject to a SSM type plebiscite or 'survey"?

All of a sudden politicians are holders of soceities morals after all

No. Completely the opposite.

 

[NSWCROW]

Andrew Birch

 

[AM]

 

[FredLeDeux]

A summary of the worst, most obnoxious effects of the Religious Privilege Bill:

As well as an explainer about the bill’s provisions, it includes examples from the government’s explanatory memorandum (EM) and stakeholders about what people would be allowed to say or do if the bill passes.

Statements of religious belief will not be found to breach other federal, state and territory discrimination laws.
Examples:

A Christian may say that unrepentant sinners will go to hell, an example cited in the EM which mirrors the facts of Israel Folau’s case
A doctor may tell a transgender patient of their religious belief that God made men and women in his image and that gender is therefore binary (EM)
A single mother who, when dropping her child off at daycare, may be told by a worker that she is sinful for denying her child a father (Public Interest Advocacy Centre)
A woman may be told by a manager that women should submit to their husbands or that women should not be employed outside the home (PIAC)
A student with disability may be told by a teacher their disability is a trial imposed by God (PIAC)
A person of a minority faith may be told by a retail assistant from another religion that they are a “heathen destined for eternal damnation” (PIAC).
Caveats – statements must be made in good faith; not be malicious or harass, vilify or incite hatred against a person or group; not advocate for the commission of a serious criminal offence.

Discrimination against a person on the basis of religious activity is unlawful.
Example: public evangelising/street-preaching – even where this is in contravention of council bylaws (EM, Just Equal).

Unless it is against the law to refuse treatment, health practitioners can conscientiously object to providing a health or medical service and no professional rules can override that right.
Examples:

A Catholic doctor refusing to provide contraception to all patients (EM) or to prescribe hormone treatment for gender transition (Equality Australia, Just Equal, LGBTI Health Alliance)
A Catholic nurse refusing to participate in abortion procedures (EM) or to provide the morning-after pill to a woman admitted to hospital after a sexual assault (Equality Australia)
A pharmacist refusing to provide the pill to women for contraceptive use (EM), or hormone treatment (Public Interest Advocacy Centre, LGBTI Health Alliance)
A doctor refusing to prescribe post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) within the required 72-hour window to a patient whose condom broke during a sexual encounter on the basis of religious beliefs that forbid sexual activity outside marriage (Equality Australia)
A psychiatrist saying to a woman with depression that “she should be looking forward to the kingdom of heaven”. Under the proposed laws, the psychiatrist could challenge their deregistration as religious discrimination, while the patient could have her disability discrimination complaint refused (Equality Australia)
A law passed by a state parliament that banned the promotion of programs that seek to “convert” LGBTIQ people could be overridden by the federal attorney general as an infringement on “statements of belief” (Just Equal).

Religious discrimination in employment is permitted to continue:

Religious hospitals, aged care providers or accommodation providers such as retirement villages may discriminate against their staff on the basis of religion both in terms of hiring and to set codes of conduct requiring them to act in accordance with that faith
A religiously affiliated business may require senior leaders to hold or engage in a particular religious belief or activity where that is an inherent requirement of those positions (EM)
An Anglican public benevolent institution could require its employees, including volunteer workers, to uphold and act consistently with Anglican doctrines and teachings at work (EM)
Domestic duties – a person hiring a live-in nanny or in-home carer services may require that they be of the same religious belief or activity as that person (EM)
An employer can ask a prospective employee whether they observe any holy days during which they can’t work to determine if they can fulfil the inherent requirements of the work (EM).

An office worker could declare on social media that a fellow employee is in a wheelchair because they are sinful and urge them to attend a faith healer. The workplace inclusion policy would be overridden by such a “statement of belief” and any action taken against the offender could be appealed to the Human Rights Commission as “religious discrimination” (Just Equal).

Schooling
A Jewish school may require that its staff and students be Jewish and accordingly refuse to hire or admit someone because they were not Jewish (EM)
A student attends the same religious school through their primary and secondary education. At 16 they lose faith in the religion of the school and tell a teacher that they are now agnostic. The school would be able to expel, suspend or otherwise punish, for example, give detention to the student (PIAC).

Religious camps and conference sites may discriminate against another person on the ground of religious belief or activity in the provision of accommodation. This is an exemption lobbied for by the Sydney Anglican church with reference to this example: Anglican Youthworks should be able to reject an application for the First Church of Satan to hold a black mass at one of its campsites.

There is also an exception for the provision of accommodation so that a homeowner seeking a tenant for their spare room may require that the tenant be of the same religious belief or activity as the homeowner (EM).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ralians-be-allowed-to-say-and-do-if-it-passes

 

[Cooldude]

A summary of the worst, most obnoxious effects of the Religious Privilege Bill:

As well as an explainer about the bill’s provisions, it includes examples from the government’s explanatory memorandum (EM) and stakeholders about what people would be allowed to say or do if the bill passes.

Statements of religious belief will not be found to breach other federal, state and territory discrimination laws.
Examples:

A Christian may say that unrepentant sinners will go to hell, an example cited in the EM which mirrors the facts of Israel Folau’s case
A doctor may tell a transgender patient of their religious belief that God made men and women in his image and that gender is therefore binary (EM)
A single mother who, when dropping her child off at daycare, may be told by a worker that she is sinful for denying her child a father (Public Interest Advocacy Centre)
A woman may be told by a manager that women should submit to their husbands or that women should not be employed outside the home (PIAC)
A student with disability may be told by a teacher their disability is a trial imposed by God (PIAC)
A person of a minority faith may be told by a retail assistant from another religion that they are a “heathen destined for eternal damnation” (PIAC).
Caveats – statements must be made in good faith; not be malicious or harass, vilify or incite hatred against a person or group; not advocate for the commission of a serious criminal offence.

Discrimination against a person on the basis of religious activity is unlawful.
Example: public evangelising/street-preaching – even where this is in contravention of council bylaws (EM, Just Equal).

Unless it is against the law to refuse treatment, health practitioners can conscientiously object to providing a health or medical service and no professional rules can override that right.
Examples:

A Catholic doctor refusing to provide contraception to all patients (EM) or to prescribe hormone treatment for gender transition (Equality Australia, Just Equal, LGBTI Health Alliance)
A Catholic nurse refusing to participate in abortion procedures (EM) or to provide the morning-after pill to a woman admitted to hospital after a sexual assault (Equality Australia)
A pharmacist refusing to provide the pill to women for contraceptive use (EM), or hormone treatment (Public Interest Advocacy Centre, LGBTI Health Alliance)
A doctor refusing to prescribe post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) within the required 72-hour window to a patient whose condom broke during a sexual encounter on the basis of religious beliefs that forbid sexual activity outside marriage (Equality Australia)
A psychiatrist saying to a woman with depression that “she should be looking forward to the kingdom of heaven”. Under the proposed laws, the psychiatrist could challenge their deregistration as religious discrimination, while the patient could have her disability discrimination complaint refused (Equality Australia)
A law passed by a state parliament that banned the promotion of programs that seek to “convert” LGBTIQ people could be overridden by the federal attorney general as an infringement on “statements of belief” (Just Equal).

Religious discrimination in employment is permitted to continue:

Religious hospitals, aged care providers or accommodation providers such as retirement villages may discriminate against their staff on the basis of religion both in terms of hiring and to set codes of conduct requiring them to act in accordance with that faith
A religiously affiliated business may require senior leaders to hold or engage in a particular religious belief or activity where that is an inherent requirement of those positions (EM)
An Anglican public benevolent institution could require its employees, including volunteer workers, to uphold and act consistently with Anglican doctrines and teachings at work (EM)
Domestic duties – a person hiring a live-in nanny or in-home carer services may require that they be of the same religious belief or activity as that person (EM)
An employer can ask a prospective employee whether they observe any holy days during which they can’t work to determine if they can fulfil the inherent requirements of the work (EM).

An office worker could declare on social media that a fellow employee is in a wheelchair because they are sinful and urge them to attend a faith healer. The workplace inclusion policy would be overridden by such a “statement of belief” and any action taken against the offender could be appealed to the Human Rights Commission as “religious discrimination” (Just Equal).

Schooling
A Jewish school may require that its staff and students be Jewish and accordingly refuse to hire or admit someone because they were not Jewish (EM)
A student attends the same religious school through their primary and secondary education. At 16 they lose faith in the religion of the school and tell a teacher that they are now agnostic. The school would be able to expel, suspend or otherwise punish, for example, give detention to the student (PIAC).

Religious camps and conference sites may discriminate against another person on the ground of religious belief or activity in the provision of accommodation. This is an exemption lobbied for by the Sydney Anglican church with reference to this example: Anglican Youthworks should be able to reject an application for the First Church of Satan to hold a black mass at one of its campsites.

There is also an exception for the provision of accommodation so that a homeowner seeking a tenant for their spare room may require that the tenant be of the same religious belief or activity as the homeowner (EM).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ralians-be-allowed-to-say-and-do-if-it-passes

Fall short of making adultery a criminal offence (again), don't want Barnaby to go to jail with Johnny Depp's dogs

 

[Gough]

Can you imagine the pearl clutching crowd's reaction the first time these laws are used by the Islamic community to defend their faith.