It is a false argument. There is no reason that the Greens should refuse to employ a climate change denier as a computer programmer or some other function which does not interfere with the Green's agenda, and there is no reason why the Catholic Church should refuse employment to an atheist janitor or some other function which does not interfere with the Catholic Church's agenda.

Any organisation should not have the right to discriminate in employment unless such discrimination is relevant to carrying out the mission of the organisation.

What a pile of garbage.

How could any bureaucrat, or academic reasonably decide why I had chosen to employ one person against another.

Lets face it, I probably couldn't say myself, why I had a preference for one of similar people, unless of course she had great legs, & wore short skirts.

The Victorian Marxist governent is surely verging on the lunatic.

By dictating that religious organisations including schools justify that it is “an inherent requirement” for a potential employee to conform to the values of the religion, the Victorian government is being highly discriminatory. It is confirming its Marxist credentials.

Victorian constituents need to wake up.

Risible rubbish Mark!

It's little more than claiming, I have a right to discriminate against left handed folk, or round earthers because I'm right handed and believe with absolute certainty, in a flat earth!

And maybe your argument would carry some weight, if people were able to chose left handedness or a pancake planet?

Or your own belief system was proven with irrefutable evidence, instead of what you "CHOOSE" to believe, without so much as a grain of reliable evidential proof?

Some beliefs die hard, like the one that was able to discriminate against black folk, because their black skin was the mark of Cain and visited on all his descendants; so we would know who they were and treat them like the condemned forever criminals they were?

Now I know most folk no longer believe in such self evident rubbish! But imagine if they did?

Would we be allowed to refuse to employ them on personal unprovable belief? Which is and always will be completely refuted by the facts and or, the mighty irrefutable truth!

If a never married J.C. walked among us today, with his preference for exclusive male company and extraordinarily gentle nature!

Would the religious right judge him Gay, and then refuse to employ him on the grounds of gender and lifestyle choice?

This vacuous, spurious, puerile argument, has more holes than Swiss cheese!
Alan B.

"A gay men’s club, set up to preserve a minority culture, can refuse to have members who aren’t gay men. "

No this does not happen. Clubs or pubs when they are restricted, the restriction is only as far as being men. No one asks if they are gay and some are bisexual, some are straight men who have sex with men and some are straight in both identity and practise and are just out with their mates and some are transmen. There is no gaydar in action vetoing people at the door. Anyone who knows LGBTI communities would know that moves to be more restrictive than this have been met with controversy and legal challenge like lesbians trying to omit transwomen. What the author has incorrectly suggested currently occurs in queer spaces is seen as immoral.

The argument focuses on exaggerating difference - it is as if we come colour-coded and everyone can see our private identity like a box at the grocery store. Reality is not like that. We are not monochromatic or wearing a "I'm a swinger" T shirt. And believe it or not but some of us can chew gum and walk at the same time whilst we go about our varied lifestyles.

The real problem being contained here is that much of the core values supposedly espoused by religious business organisations are not seen as moral any more especially in a business arrangement. They seek to protect students from this reality -from messages that they are swimming in from the likes of TV, film and music. They are trying to restrict their freedom and diversity by trashing someone else's diversity, the perceived other. It is fear based manipulation: 'those type of people are not worthy to be here'.