Sam Chung writes: Equating the proposed federal religious discrimination bill with other protected categories is textbook false equivalence.
When the Racial Discrimination Act was passed in 1975 there was widely accepted discrimination against non-white people. When the Sex Discrimination Act was passed in 1984 there was widely accepted discrimination against women and girls. When the Disability Discrimination Act was passed in 1992 there was widely accepted discrimination against people with disabilities. When the Age Discrimination Act was passed in 2004 there was widely accepted discrimination against older people.
When the religious discrimination bill was proposed, faith-based groups had enjoyed decades of blanket and automatic exemptions from most anti-discrimination laws and had successfully held the country hostage until we had an unprecedented popular vote on the civil rights of LGBTQIA+ people.
Dee O’Loughlin writes: The call for religious anti-discrimination laws is predicated upon discriminating against those who do not fit their particular belief system.
Religious schools benefit immensely (and unfairly) from the public purse while seeking to discriminate against LGBTQIA+ students and teachers who are an integral part of our population. Religious hospitals such as Calvary, who again are supported generously by public funding, avoid providing services that do not meet their religious beliefs.
We are entitled to have varying beliefs and even express them in virulent and cruel speech, but not actively to promote physical violence. That is as far as it should go.
Janet Holmes writes: Regarding the merits or otherwise of having religious discrimination laws, it occurs to me that the attributes for which we already have anti-discrimination laws (gender, age, disability, race) are innate human characteristics — characteristics that people have no choice in having. Religion, on the other hand, is not innate, but rather a matter of personal conviction or choice.
This is probably the crux of the dilemma — trying to reconcile conflicts that arise when trying to strike a balance between things that are innate vs things that we elect to believe.
If we start having laws that you can’t discriminate against things people believe, where would that stop? What about political beliefs, or beliefs in atheism, or agnosticism, or tooth fairies or Santa or UFOs? I think it’s much better to just ditch the whole idea of having such legislation.
Jock Webb writes: I want a freedom from religion bill. Get these bible thumpers out of public influence. Seriously though I think religions should be able to discriminate in contravention of our laws as long as they immediately repay all government monies and get their hand out of the public education pocket. We have no business funding them to break the secular law.
I’m with Jock Webb.
Make prosletyzing an offence, and prosletyzing to children an aggravated offence.
Totally agree.
…. as they immediately repay all government monies and get their hand out of the public education pocket.
Out of the public hospitals pocket too. 100% publicly funded but choosing which entirely lawful procedures they will or will not provide is not acceptable
I’m with Jock. Religious groups should not have freedom to discriminate for any reason. Any groups that do discriminate should be considered criminal and cut off from any and all forms of public purse.
I’d like to see funding of anti-religious propaganda, for each dollar given to a faith-based organisation, equal funding should be given to an organisation that debunks the who magical sky fairy myths.
whole, not who. myth, not myths. D’oh!
Agree with most of these points but I think Janet’s point that innate attributes need protection but trying to legislate for ‘beliefs’ is always going to be a minefield.
Not really. You can believe what you like. You are free to believe that women are inferior to men for instance. Believe away! Perhaps believe the opposite on Thursdays. So what?
It’s when you discriminate against a woman that the line is crossed. It’s the principle of “Your right to throw your fists around ends at the tip of my nose”. Be as petty and bigoted as you like in your own head, but leave it there.
Religious beliefs aren’t even different to any other beliefs. Lots of people believe for instance that they would be better custodians of their earnings than the Tax Office. The ATO doesn’t take them to court for having that belief. They sue them for not paying their taxes.
Big religion is a willing enabler of all sorts of crimes including sexual offences and grooming of their flocks for all kinds of exploitation of the status quo, including government. There is no way they should be given any sort of concession, least of all the power to discriminate against anyone they dont like.
Take away the concessions they already have and dont give them any new ones.
Most religions are structurally incompetent to deal with abuse, particularly the, “we’re all sinners” variety. Equating a victim with a perpetrator is always wrong but is inherent in the “all sinners” line.
Hey that’s my joke: change one word a mere preposition freedom FROM religion
Illegal to compel anyone over the age of 12 to follow any particular religion
Illegal to pursue or pester anyone who leaves a religion at any age
AND Illegal to have any religious ritual practice or condition that is conditional on gender