Play Nice Religious Protections in the law

[Chief]

So, we've had the SSM process and the votes against religious protections in the SSM law change.

We've had the debates about 18C.

What in your opinion is an appropriate level of protection of religious beliefs?

What is the current legal landscape - RDA, common law rulings, defamation law?

I'm interested in what we have and what we should have, not whether religion is stupid or not. Should religion be treated like any other thought or philosophy? How do we evaluate it? Are all stupid or incorrect thought processes worthless? Maybe we do need to discuss whether religion has any value or if it is just, stupid?

How about for the purposes of this argument we assume religion has some net value?

 

[King Brown]

None need protecting, but by the same token I don’t believe the state should regulate personal discrimination, absent (near-)monopoly power.

As such, if a small baker doesn’t want to make cakes for gay marriage, fair enough, but if banks or one of the big supermarkets systematically deny black people loans or groceries then they should be heavily on penalised.

Sadly I’d say it’s inverted. Plenty of discrimination at the corporate level that gets abstract away, while the little guy contends with both the market and the law.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

I think you should be able to discriminate against anything you get a choice in.

You choose to be a Trump supporter and wear a MAGA hat? Sure, discriminate away.
You choose to be a Baptist? Sure, discriminate away.
You choose to be a Muslim? Sure, discriminate away.

Peoples' choices should never infringe on others, and a result of these choices, sometimes there are prices that have to be paid.

That said, discrimination against gays and ethnicities should be disallowed.

 

[Gough]

If a business wishes to discriminate based on faith they should be allowed to as long as a sign is displayed informing people of this at their premises and this discrimination is clearly stated in their advertising. I would assume that they would want to take some pride in both their faith and their stance on the issue.

 

[RupieDupie]

Freedom from religion begets freedom of religion

 

[ShanDog]

As far as I understand it, the current laws should protect churches from any legal repercussions of refusing to marry a same-sex couple. This is reasonable to me. Freedom of religion inherently requires the religious to freely enact their religious doctrine, short of extreme examples which a reasonable person can 100% say are incompatible with society's beliefs (such as FGM).

Once we stray into the world of commerce, it's entirely reasonable to outlaw discrimination in any form. I hate the Christian baker argument but it's the one people still come back to. So using that scenario, the bakery is a business entity and the owner's views are irrelevant and not a reasonable excuse to discriminate against a customer.

It's pretty straightforward for mine.

 

[King Brown]

Once we stray into the world of commerce, it's entirely reasonable to outlaw discrimination in any form. I hate the Christian baker argument but it's the one people still come back to. So using that scenario, the bakery is a business entity and the owner's views are irrelevant and not a reasonable excuse to discriminate against a customer.

Why shouldn't the business be free to discriminate? Should a Muslim baker have to make a cake with the Star of David on it? Should a female sex worker have to offer her services with a bisexual man, who she would normally refuse on the basis of his bisexuality?

 

[ShanDog]

Why shouldn't the business be free to discriminate? Should a Muslim baker have to make a cake with the Star of David on it? Should a female sex worker have to offer her services with a bisexual man, who she would normally refuse on the basis of her bisexuality?

There are acceptable circumstances for a business to discriminate, like not having the right shoes at a club etc, so I should have been a bit clearer. As far as I can tell though, thats legal discrimination as a result of being for reasonable and also easily remedied by the customer. Being gay is not.

Your second example contains many other contributing factors to the reasons behind it that aren't applicable such as personal health and safety. The cake baker is purely ideological, which I guess is the crux of where I am suggesting the line be drawn.

 

[RupieDupie]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

If your brain causes you to sin, cut out your brain, better to enter heaven an eediot, then not to enter heaven at all

 

[King Brown]

There are acceptable circumstances for a business to discriminate, like not having the right shoes at a club etc, so I should have been a bit clearer. As far as I can tell though, thats legal discrimination as a result of being for reasonable and also easily remedied by the customer. Being gay is not.

Plenty of legal discrimination where the customer or employee can't remedy their situation: eg women's only gyms, gay-only nightclubs, bans by certain military contractors on foreign workers.

 

[RupieDupie]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

If your brain causes you to sin, cut out your brain, better to enter heaven an eediot, then not to enter heaven at all

Or alternatively, if your religious interpretation is incompatible with society, interpret your religion differently, better to be part of a society than it is to be ostracised as a jerk.

 

[Strange Cat]

I really wish society would do away with religion, you’d think in this enlighten period of humanity people would had grown up and stop believing in fairy tales.

 

[JCHolmes]

''How about for the purposes of this argument we assume religion has some net value?''

Lost me already. But seriously, they should have some protection I guess. I loathe religion in general and think its held us back too long as is. It still is, ie SSM debate. But would we be better off, individually and locally if religion was wiped clean off the face of the planet, starting today? In what way? I have a few ideas but just interested in what others think.

 

[chelseacarlton]

They don’t deserve or require any protections.
“Oh you want a swastika held by jesus and mohammad whilst kissing,baked on your cake do you?,I’m sorry I can’t do that,I’m too busy,I’m going on holidays,I’m getting my haircut that day,my bottom hurts....”
Whatever,we lie every day and many different ways to various different people for whatever reasons to remove ourselves from numerous situations.
Why do they have exhort their particular belief into a situation that might offend them,just refuse to do it and make up some bullshit story,they’re good at convincing themselves of them anyway!

 

[ShanDog]

''How about for the purposes of this argument we assume religion has some net value?''

Lost me already. But seriously, they should have some protection I guess. I loathe religion in general and think its held us back too long as is. It still is, ie SSM debate. But would we be better off, individually and locally if religion was wiped clean off the face of the planet, starting today? In what way? I have a few ideas but just interested in what others think.

Absolutely not. Recommend this lecture series to understand why texts like the Bible exist, and what they mean on a psychological level. Well worth the time invested by listening if you are genuinely interested in the topic. chelseacarlton did you ever have a listen?

 

[Admiral Byng]

The law should allow people to partake in whatever religious observances they want provided they do no harm to others.

 

[Pie eyed]

So, we've had the SSM process and the votes against religious protections in the SSM law change.

We've had the debates about 18C.

What in your opinion is an appropriate level of protection of religious beliefs?

What is the current legal landscape - RDA, common law rulings, defamation law?

I'm interested in what we have and what we should have, not whether religion is stupid or not. Should religion be treated like any other thought or philosophy? How do we evaluate it? Are all stupid or incorrect thought processes worthless? Maybe we do need to discuss whether religion has any value or if it is just, stupid?

How about for the purposes of this argument we assume religion has some net value?

All people should have the right to believe what ever religion, cult, myth or witchcraft it is they want to, but absolutely no right to enforce their beliefs on anyone else and definitely no right no have their beliefs enshrined in law. Forcing or attempting to force religious beliefs on anyone should be a capital crime.
The Government should divest itself of all religious links.
Religious organisations should stand and fall on their own financial feet with absolutely no concessions from Government, especially tax concessions.
If religious schools can not survive on their own without Government handouts they should fail.
Government money should be spent exclusively on secular education. Period.
The myth that religious schools ease the burden on Government is a blatant lie and always has been.
We can afford to pay for our own educations system.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Absolutely not. Recommend this lecture series to understand why texts like the Bible exist, and what they mean on a psychological level. Well worth the time invested by listening if you are genuinely interested in the topic. chelseacarlton did you ever have a listen?

Nah,I never got around to it,I watched Bennett’s “genesis explained” vid and gave up after it failed to even recognise the creation 7 days thing,it just went on and on about warring tribes.
I’ll look at it tonight!

 

[Big_Luch]

All people should have the right to believe what ever religion, cult, myth or witchcraft it is they want to, but absolutely no right to enforce their beliefs on anyone else and definitely no right no have their beliefs enshrined in law. Forcing or attempting to force religious beliefs on anyone should be a capital crime.
The Government should divest itself of all religious links.
Religious organisations should stand and fall on their own financial feet with absolutely no concessions from Government, especially tax concessions.
If religious schools can not survive on their own without Government handouts they should fail.
Government money should be spent exclusively on secular education. Period.
The myth that religious schools ease the burden on Government is a blatant lie and always has been.
We can afford to pay for our own educations system.

How do religious schools not ease the financial pressures on the government? Parents are paying nearly 10k a year to these schools. Where does that money go?

 

[Bennett.]

Nah,I never got around to it,I watched Bennett’s “genesis explained” vid and gave up after it failed to even recognise the creation 7 days thing,it just went on and on about warring tribes.
I’ll look at it tonight!

So....didn’t really want to know

 

[Snake_Baker]

All religious tenets should be banned from all political platforms.

 

[Chief]

How do religious schools not ease the financial pressures on the government? Parents are paying nearly 10k a year to these schools. Where does that money go?

And more than that.

But this assumes this money would disappear. Parents would still give money, provide resources.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Chief]

All religious tenets should be banned from all political platforms.

How do you separate the religious from mere philosophy?

Many religions share sayings and expectations of their followers.

I get it about covering your neighbours ass, but do we throw out “though shalt not kill”?

The law provides justifications for killing other people anyway.

 

[ShanDog]

All religious tenets should be banned from all political platforms.

Nietzsche warned against this very thing despite being a critic of organised religion. Predicted horrible things to come of that attitude and was right. Have we advanced as a society that much in a couple hundred years since then?

Peterson said we're morally half asleep with fingers on the buttons of nuclear bombs. He's right.

 

[chelseacarlton]

So....didn’t really want to know

Yes I really respect abject falsities and inconsistenties,I watched your entire vid,I gave up ‘caring’,is what I meant!
I’m not interested in context,I’m interested in whether it provides evidence of reality.
With the limited knowledge they had,it wasn’t a bad effort,but we grew up and know how earthquakes work,how mountains are formed etc.