Should the focus now be on religious freedoms?

[matte]

Now that the same sex marriage survey is pretty much done and dusted, with the yes campaign sure to win, should the focus now be on religious freedoms?

The law should be changed before the Marriage Act amendment is introduced, enshrining the freedom of business owners, churches and private schools from having to serve, wed or employ those who are engaged in same sex marriage.


-----

Same-sex marriage proposals don't protect religious freedom

By Kevin Andrews
21 August 2017

It may come as a surprise to Australians to learn that there is very little legal protection for freedom of religion and belief in this nation. This is the evidence that has been given by legal and constitutional experts to the Human Rights Sub-Committee inquiry into Freedom of Religion and Belief.

The Australian Constitution provides in section 116 that the state cannot establish a religion, impose a religious observance or prohibit the free exercise of any religion. The evidence to the parliamentary committee is that this provision does not protect religious expression generally.

Internationally, freedom of religion is set out in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The provisions in Article 18 of the two documents are in similar terms with the Covenant expanding upon the Declaration.

Religious freedom in theory

Briefly, Article 18 of the Covenant provides that everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. "This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching."

This freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject "only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others."

Moreover, parents and legal guardians have "the freedom to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions".

Article 18 is broadly stated, but it has never been incorporated into Australian law.

To the contrary, the provision of Article 26, which involves the right against discrimination, has been adopted, in effect, in both Commonwealth and state laws.

Same-sex marriage will only make it worse

This creates an imbalance. Hence, religious pastors, as is occurring in Tasmania, can be hauled before a tribunal for simply preaching the traditional Christian understanding of marriage, but they have little protection for their religious liberty.

This is made worse by the proposed same-sex marriage bills, which have very limited protections for marriage celebrants. The protections, to the extent they exist in the draft bills, are limited to the marriage ceremony. There are no protections, for example, for faith-based marriage education, counselling or welfare organisations. Nor are religious schools adequately protected. Moreover, both the UN Committee and the European Court of Human Rights have found that there is no right to same-sex marriage.

People who blandly assert that freedom of religion is adequately protected in Australia are either ignorant or being misleading.

The consequences elsewhere are far-reaching. An orthodox Jewish primary school in London has been threatened with deregistration unless it teaches about gender fluidity and reassignment, despite this being contrary to the school's religious beliefs. This is a school that just a few years ago was commended for the outstanding education it provided.

To legislate for same-sex marriage along the lines of the current draft bills will undermine the limited religious freedom that exists in Australia.

Kevin Andrews MP is chairing a parliamentary inquiry into freedom of religion and belief.



www.afr.com/news/politics/national/samesex-marriage-proposals-dont-protect-religious-freedom-20170820-gy03po

[Deleted]

Religion has had the freedom to abuse, vilify and discriminate against LGBTI for centuries as it is.
Fuck em
Give them nothing

[KTJ]

Fuck religion.

It's a load of shit.

And stupid imbeciles like Matty-boy are mentally-retarded idiots who haven't yet woken up to the fact we are now living in the 21st century instead of the dark-ages.

[Deleted]

“Now that the same sex marriage survey is pretty much done and dusted, with the yes campaign sure to win, should the focus now be on religious freedoms?

The law should be changed before the Marriage Act amendment is introduced, enshrining the freedom of business owners, churches and private schools from having to serve, wed or employ those who are engaged in same sex marriage “

Firstly, the survey is far from done and dusted. Regardless of the result it then has to go to parliament which may decide to to nothing or go against the results.
Secondly, anti discrimination laws already exist prohibiting ‘ denial of service’ to anyone based on race religion or sexuality. There is no reason that should change since the only difference will be gays being able to request a wedding cake instead of a ‘commitment ceremony’ cake. Any refusal would likely be met with a “fuck you, I’ll take my business elsewhere”

There was a case recently where the pastor of a church in Ballaratcancelled the wedding ceremony of a couple because the girl posted support for SSM on Facebook. That is really taking it to extreme

[pim]

If I wanted to get (re)married in a Catholic wedding ceremony I'd run straight up against the Catholic prohibition on divorce. I wouldn't even try because who'd need the aggro on what is supposed to be a happy occasion? I'd settle for a civil ceremony and be glad of it. To be fair to the Taigs (pronounced "tykes" - it’s northern Irish Protestant slang for Catholic) they're not the only bunch of god botherers who'd throw Mark 10:9 at a divorced person seeking to remarry. Plenty of Protestants who'd do the same thing. So be it. My point is that nobody to my knowledge has ever taken the clergy of whatever denomination to court because they refused to conduct a wedding ceremony for a hetero couple on the grounds of Mark 10:9. On the contrary the court would probably give any attempt to sue the clergy over Mark 10:9 short shrift (as it were! coff coff!).

So let's forget this silly furphy about freedom of religion. The churches already get heaps of exemptions as wedding celebrants under the Marriage Act. Why should that change with SSM?

What we should brace ourselves for is:

1. An intensification of the camaign as the November 7 deadline for the postal survey draws near. Several million people still haven't "voted" and as far as the NO campaign goes those votes are up for grabs. If the large minority who haven't yet returned their survey forms get pissed off by the increasingly strident nature of the advertising, and they're moved to fill in their forms and post them in that spirit, that will benefit the NO campaign whose campaign has been a negative one. Expect the negativity to increase in intensity. Think Star Wars: "Good! Good! Give in to your anger!"

2. After November 7 even with a YES majority expect a campaign from the NO camp to challenge the validity of the result with accusations of fraud, tampering and hair-splitting about the meaning of "majority". The idea will be to spread confusion. It will succeed.

3. In the event of a YES majority a bill for an Act to amend the Marriage Act will be presented to parliament before parliament rises for the Christmas recess. This will be a First Reading only after which the NO camp in the Coalition will table their "pastry cook" amendments and their "persecuted Christian" amendments. Parliament will rise for Christmas and resume in February 2018 at which time the focus will be on the May Budget. I can see the SSM debate taking all of next year.

4. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Turnbull Government proves to be incapable of delivering SSM because its internal politics will prevent this from happening. It'll be an issue in the 2019 elections which Shorten Labor will win.

5. A newly elected Shorten Labor government enacts SSM within its first 100 days. LGBTQI party their brains out, rock their socks off and the 2019 gay & lesbian mardi gras ends up being the party to end all parties. Then we all wake up with a hangover and talk about something else.

[pim]

To the extent that the NO camp god-bothering fundamentalists are right about freedom of religion I'd suggest one teeny weeny tweak to the phrase "freedom of religion". Chuck out the two letter word, the one in the middle, the little preposition "of". Replace it with a four letter word beginning with "f" (no not that one, KTJ!! Down boy, down!) "from"!!

[Deleted]

Turnbull is simply going through the motions of SSM its a farce.

Neo-Conservative politics cannot move into the future with change as its tied to the old guard (read as oligarchy) who do not want to relinquish their power and profit, as an eg; the coal industry... renewables is where the money is in the future but the conservatives cannot move to the future because the coal corporate power wants to maintain its profit now...bugger the future, lie about climate change.

Its dumb the nation down and keep people in the dark ages as the government is not the power its the corporate world, Labor is very much influenced by that power as well, its only the democratic socialist that invoke real change.

Just like Tony Abbott is not the power he is the mouth piece to George Pell with religion, Pell is the power... religion is the power against change that will make lives better for gay people, no freedom in that.

Conservative politics, conservative religion, conservative ideology is killing the planet and the future.

[Deleted]

All clear Don....if not consider that disease/cancer is natures one of controlling population levels...So you would be doing the human race a favour in keeping levels down, that would playing your part a s a service....goes for everyone.

[matte]

Prominent Chefs Oppose Baker in Major U.S. Gay-Rights Case

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (MARK SHERMAN)
21 October 2017

Washington (AP) -- Prominent chefs, bakers and restaurant owners want the Supreme Court to rule against a Colorado baker who wouldn't make a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding.

The food makers say that once they open their doors for business, they don't get to choose their customers. They say that abiding by laws that bar discrimination based on sexual orientation does not strip them of creative control of a dish or a pastry.

Celebrity chefs Jose Andres, Elizabeth Falkner and Carla Hall, the owners of a popular Washington, D.C., cupcake shop and a small-town baker from Mississippi are among those who are signing onto a legal brief being written by the Human Rights Campaign.

Cake artists who want the justices to recognize the artistic expression in cake-baking filed a separate brief last month that does not take sides in the case.

The case pits the rights of a gay couple against baker Jack Phillips' religious objections to same-sex marriage. The case will be argued on Dec. 5.

Phillips owns the Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver. In 2012, he told Charlie Craig and David Mullins that he would not make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

The couple complained to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission that Phillips violated the state's anti-discrimination law. Phillips lost at every step in the legal process before the Supreme Court agreed in June to hear his case.

While Phillips' religious beliefs about same-sex marriage underlie the case, the main argument he is making at the Supreme Court is that, as an artist, he cannot be compelled to create a cake at odds with his views.

The chefs, bakers and restaurateurs who are part of the Human Rights Campaign effort say that anti-discrimination laws in Colorado and 21 other states are reasonable regulations that don't stifle their artistic creativity.

"It's not about your art. When you're open to service to people, you can't decide who to serve and not serve," said Falkner, who has owned restaurants in New York and San Francisco and been both a contestant and judge on cooking competitions.

Mary Jennifer Russell, owner of Sugaree's Bakery in New Albany, Mississippi, said, "I can decide what to create and what to serve, but not to say I won't serve it to a gay person, or a transgender person or a woman or a person of color."

Sophie Kallinis LaMontagne, a co-owner of Washington's Georgetown Cupcake, said she and her sister, Katherine Kallinis Berman, want the Supreme Court to hear from bakers and chefs "why we believe it's so important that they don't allow businesses to discriminate. This is about doing the right thing and welcoming all."

Last month, 11 cake artists submitted a brief that looked almost good enough to eat. It contained dozens of pictures of extravagant and finely detailed cakes, including multitiered cakes for same-sex weddings.

The point of the brief was to show that the cakes are works of art and are entitled to the same constitutional protection as artworks in other mediums.

The cake artists do not call for the court to rule one way or another, but their argument fits nicely with the one being advanced by Phillips.

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-20/prominent-chefs-bakers-say-businesses-can-t-pick-customers?cmpid=socialflow-facebook-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

[pim]

Scrolling past Hidden Post, ask anyone in the retail trade, or in car sales, or real estate or white goods, about the value of the "pink dollar" - i.e. cashed up same sex couples in professional employment looking to set up house together and with a lot of discretionary income - and they'll tell you that the pink dollar clientele is a gold mine. If a pastry cook or a florist wants to pass up a lucrative business opportunity then that's up to them! Plenty more out there who'd snap up the business! I bet Pauline never checked if any of her fish&chips customers was gay!

[matte]

Businesses should not be compelled to participate.

[KTJ]

People should not be compelled to be nice to mormons, because they are demented, brainwashed trash.

It should be perfectly acceptable to spray mormon missionaries with cow effluent (or even human effluent) if they set foot on one's property.

[pim]

Oct 21, 2017 15:07:36 GMT 10 matte said:

Businesses should not be compelled to participate.

Name the people who are arguing that they should! Aren't those rights enshrined in law already? With safeguards for minorities? For example I have an investment property in NSW and over the past ten years I've been landlord to a variety of tenants. I had an Aboriginal couple a few years ago. Defied all the racist stereotypes that you and your racist mates OTR love to spread around. They were model tenants, rent paid on time always and in full, and the property was left spotless. Currently I have a gay couple. They're such good tenants that contrary to the advice of the managing agent I've spared them a rent increase so they're renting below the market rental since I figure that it pays a landlord to look after a good tenant.

But this us all about choice and business decisions - but isn't that what capitalism is supposed to be about? True, the law stops you from discriminating against a client/customer on the grounds of race. So in law I can't refuse to let my property to an Aborigine on the grounds of that person's Aboriginality. Or because he's gay. But that's justice! Mind you if you really want to find a reason not to sign a rental agreement with someone who looks dodgy, you'll always find a reason that won't land you in court. By the same token you don't really need a raft of legislation to protect florists and pastry cooks who don't want to accept business from same sex couples wanting to get married. If they really want to knock back the pink dollar then let ' em!! There will always be plenty of other pastry cooks and florists who'd be falling over themselves to pick up that business. So no need for laws there. The market will sort out the anti SSM pastry cooks and florists, my word it will! Remember Joh?

[Deleted]

I'm very relieved to have been given the all clear for now.

Thats good Don....unfortunately this board has become diseased. 

[pim]

I went to the second SSM rally in Adelaide as part of the YES campaign. Well attended! The first one pulled in 5000 and this one, while not as numerous, nevertheless took up all of North Terrace in front of the state parliament house from the railway station up to the intersection with King William St. Mark Butler spoke and he was good. I even liked Sarah Hanson-Young's speech and it's not often that I get to say good things about Sarah H-Y. I saw the best banner at the rally. It read as follows: "I wasn't even going to ask her father, now I have to ask the whole fucking country!". Cops were out in force but were good humoured. Couple of naysayer counter demonstrators with their god-bothering banners threatening fire and brimstone, the wages of sin ... etc etc but the cops kept them well away. Lots of passive support from passers by, waves and honking from passing motorists. No, none, zero overt hostility. The NO vote is tanking so expect the plan B from that quarter which will be to use every procedural trick in parliament to delay, block and amend attempts at SSM legislation. Expect the hysteria about "religious freedom" and "freedom of speech" to ramp up.

[matte]

Serious question, but what is the point of all these rallies? Australians have made their minds up and holding a rally will not change their mind.

[pim]

Here Matt, I realise you're pretending not to understand that we've already covered the "what's the point of the rallies" question and I realise you'll just ignore any posted answer and go on pretending that each time you tiresomely repeat your "what's the point of the rallies" question that it's the first time that you've asked it.

It isn't.

So to save time I'll just repost my answer that I gave earlier in the thread:

Oct 20, 2017 17:03:00 GMT 10 pim said:

If I wanted to get (re)married in a Catholic wedding ceremony I'd run straight up against the Catholic prohibition on divorce. I wouldn't even try because who'd need the aggro on what is supposed to be a happy occasion? I'd settle for a civil ceremony and be glad of it. To be fair to the Taigs (pronounced "tykes" - it’s northern Irish Protestant slang for Catholic) they're not the only bunch of god botherers who'd throw Mark 10:9 at a divorced person seeking to remarry. Plenty of Protestants who'd do the same thing. So be it. My point is that nobody to my knowledge has ever taken the clergy of whatever denomination to court because they refused to conduct a wedding ceremony for a hetero couple on the grounds of Mark 10:9. On the contrary the court would probably give any attempt to sue the clergy over Mark 10:9 short shrift (as it were! coff coff!).

So let's forget this silly furphy about freedom of religion. The churches already get heaps of exemptions as wedding celebrants under the Marriage Act. Why should that change with SSM?

What we should brace ourselves for is:

1. An intensification of the camaign as the November 7 deadline for the postal survey draws near. Several million people still haven't "voted" and as far as the NO campaign goes those votes are up for grabs. If the large minority who haven't yet returned their survey forms get pissed off by the increasingly strident nature of the advertising, and they're moved to fill in their forms and post them in that spirit, that will benefit the NO campaign whose campaign has been a negative one. Expect the negativity to increase in intensity. Think Star Wars: "Good! Good! Give in to your anger!"

2. After November 7 even with a YES majority expect a campaign from the NO camp to challenge the validity of the result with accusations of fraud, tampering and hair-splitting about the meaning of "majority". The idea will be to spread confusion. It will succeed.

3. In the event of a YES majority a bill for an Act to amend the Marriage Act will be presented to parliament before parliament rises for the Christmas recess. This will be a First Reading only after which the NO camp in the Coalition will table their "pastry cook" amendments and their "persecuted Christian" amendments. Parliament will rise for Christmas and resume in February 2018 at which time the focus will be on the May Budget. I can see the SSM debate taking all of next year.

4. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Turnbull Government proves to be incapable of delivering SSM because its internal politics will prevent this from happening. It'll be an issue in the 2019 elections which Shorten Labor will win.

5. A newly elected Shorten Labor government enacts SSM within its first 100 days. LGBTQI party their brains out, rock their socks off and the 2019 gay & lesbian mardi gras ends up being the party to end all parties. Then we all wake up with a hangover and talk about something else.

Apparently there are 5 million reasons to keep campaigning and to keep holding rallies. Don't like it? Make you feel uncomfortable? Aww diddums!

[Deleted]

And so it goes...children of gay couples get their noses rubbed in it.

[pim]

Christian groups call for religious bill to be dumped now that it doesn’t let them bully trans kids

www.theshovel.com.au/2022/02/10/christian-groups-religious-bill-dumped-bully-trans-kids/



Conservative Christian groups have called on the Government to scrap the Religious Discrimination Bill altogether, now that new amendments mean they can’t fuck around with the lives of vulnerable kids.

The groups had strongly supported the bill, right up to the moment when Independent MP Rebekah Sharkie successfully introduced an amendment that stopped the right of religious schools to discriminate against gay and transgender students. They are now calling for it to be dropped.

“Seriously, what’s the point of an anti-discrimination bill if it doesn’t give us the right to discriminate against people? it doesn’t make any sense” one angry Christian lobbyist said. “As Jesus said – God’s love is for almost everyone”.

Many had assumed the Christian groups would continue to support the bill, due to its protections of religious freedoms. But their latest stance shows that they were only interested in having the right to shit on gay school kids.

“Principals at Christian schools need to have the confidence that they can stand up in an assembly and pick on a gay or trans kid,” one lobbyist said. “There’s very little point for this bill otherwise”.

[Occam's Spork]

Don't you think that it would be more fair to let the children hear the opinions from all camps. Thus allowing them to make an informed decision? This is a decision that effects not only them, but everyone around them.

What is there to be gained by silencing one group? Isn't there enough woke totalitarian censorship as it is?

...Now I'll sit back and await the impending leftist outrage backlash.

[pim]

Outrage backlash tantrums are more Mad Matt’s style. He does them so well and has had so much practice that they’re best left to him.

It’s a satirical piece from a scurrilous online publication called “The Shovel” that loves to take the piss out of … well … everything. I enjoy it when it targets the conservatives - which it does frequently since they are in government nationally - and squirm when they target the Labor Party which they do from time to time. Labor is in government at the state level in 5 out of the 8 state/territory jurisdictions. I think kids who are trans cop enough of a bollocking from their peers and society generally. I think a bit of positive discrimination in their favour is not out of place.

[caskur]

Feb 11, 2022 10:48:22 GMT 10 Occam's Spork said:

Don't you think that it would be more fair to let the children hear the opinions from all camps. Thus allowing them to make an informed decision? This is a decision that effects not only them, but everyone around them.

What is there to be gained by silencing one group? Isn't there enough woke totalitarian censorship as it is?

...Now I'll sit back and await the impending leftist outrage backlash.

They're (drongos on the Fed far left that is) are attacking Christians like they always do over a mental health issue which is what trans is. A whole bunch of hystrionic women are getting on TV about half a dozen kids who might have their feelers hurt. It is really bizarre. At first I was very concerned, now I laugh. If the kids want to go to a Christian school I am sure they will be continually told they are sinners that need to repent... if that bugs them then eat it up or just leave.

What will the woke left go for next week? Labor will whip up an issue where there is none... at election times it always about geriatrics, abos, now trans which is replacing homosexuals issues.

I wonder what the woke left will do when they run out of bulldust causes at election times....lol

[pim]

Labor whipped up this issue? Huh??? You’re saying it was the Labor Opposition that kept federal parliament sitting until after 4am while it tried to ram through legislation on this issue?

You don’t really have a grip on reality do you Toots.

Here’s a few little factoids for you:

1. Scott Morrison is the Prime Minister. Not Anthony Albanese. Albo is the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

2. The prime minister is the head of the government and as such gets to call the shots on what business gets debated in the parliament.

3. It was Scott Morrison who kept the federal parliament sitting until after 4am debating his religious discrimination bill.

4. It was defeated just as the first grey light of dawn appeared in the Canberra sky because when it came to the vote, five Liberal MPs crossed the floor to vote with the Labor opposition and the cross benches to deny Morrison the numbers.

5. So the situation is that Scott Morrison inflicted a divisive culture war in an attempt to wedge the Labor Party and only ended up wedging himself and damaging the government.

6. Governments don’t like being defeated on the floor of parliament. It tends to indicate to the voters that they can’t get stuff done. That they’re not in charge. Scott Morrison weakened his own position as prime minister in the eyes of his own Coalition colleagues. They’re pissed off with him.

7. Scotty Smirk and Mirrors would be delighted that you blame the shitstorm he created and mismanaged on the Labor Opposition. You’re one of his useful idiots in voter land who’d believe anything.

[Gort]

[Gort]