Alot of parents don't seem to get this, but most private schools are owned by churches. They don't just exist to keep middle class kids away from the riff-raff. These schools were formed to allow the churches to teach their religion. The rest of us don't get lecture churches on what they can and cannot preach.

Religion does not play a part in who we
allow into this country. We have equality under
the law. This means that nobody is
treated differently from anybody else because
of their race, ethnicity or country of origin,
because of their age, gender, marital status,
or disability, or because of their political
or religious beliefs.

If you want to see this changed you can lobby
your Member of Parliament. Elected
Parliamentarians are the only bodies able to make
our laws or delegate the authority to make laws.

We're all expected in this country to obey laws
established by our governments. Equally, we're
protected by the rule of law. This means that no one
is "above the law" even if they hold a position of
power, like politicians or the police.

And any religious group or person that breaks the
law will be dealt with accordingly.

Criminals do not just belong to one particular group.
They come in a variety of forms. As history has shown.

So, if a religious school finds that one of its pupils or a teacher is actively advocating things that are against that religions faith/beliefs, then that religion should cop it sweet and put up with it?

Should the same apply to political parties or would they be allowed to expel a dissenter?

Should the Greens be allowed to expel a member who openly advocates the ownership of firearms for self-defence and who demonstrates for the use of coal in coal-fired power stations?

Or, who, heaven forbid, openly calls for farmers and others living in the bush, to be allowed to cut down any trees that they see as a fire hazard?

farmers and others living in the bush, to be allowed to cut down any trees that they see as a fire hazard?
Is Mise,
Bureaucrats & do-gooders from outside an electorate must not be allowed to dictate on any policy affecting the electorate. Presently, they do & the mess is there for everyone to see.

I have just noted and read, once more, the topic heading.
'Religions have no right to judgement on sexual orientation or gender identity'.
I'm not so sure.
Are the authors saying that these topics are taboo and not for discussion, 'at all', by religious institutions?
I believe that for the time being, religion is being held in such a high regard that it is, in some cases, a form of law and dictates the very standards used in every day lives.
As is the case with those religions who subscribe to traditional and historical interpretations of human values, morals, ethics and standards.
In this day and age of enlightenment, as some would try to justify it, I for one am relieved to know that there is a 'constant' we can turn to for re-assurance and re-alignment whenever there is an event such as now, where we are forced to accept a new dogma which we 'know' is wrong and makes us feel uncomfortable or even clinically ill.
In their attempt at enforcing their particular dogma, the authors are attempting to force the issue of religion having 'any' say in this matter, thereby giving them one less barrier to surmount, in their quest for total dominance of this topic.
If you stop and think about it, this topic is precisely within the purview of religion.

Foxy,

"Religious laws have no legal status in Australia. Therefore..."
we should do away with all secular observance of religious law.

Christmas Day and Good Friday come to mind, these are days set aside under religious law for observance, anyone worth their salt, who objects to religious laws or observances should have the backbone to stand up to this theocratic nonsense and insist on working on those days and at their ordinary rate of pay.
Penalty rates for Sunday work will also be eschewed as a matter of principle.