WE just don't need to re-debate SSM!

And nowhere in this wide brown land is there an impediment to freedom of religious worship! None! Unless you're a bogus religion like Scientology? Just using the nomenclature to avoid tax and paying minimum pay scales!?

What some of the alleged religious ( medieval, flat earther) Leaders want, is the right to discriminate on perceived gender bias, even where peer-reviewed medical science has established that there is a gay gene! Two for sure and another three probable. ( World-renowned and highly credentialled, Alan Sauders and team!)

The government that acquiesces to this religious freedom BS, will likely pay with their political future and join other political parties in the political wilderness, by being subservient to the views of less than 15 of the population!?

That said, if those who claim religious freedom is under some perceived threat, can have all their REAL concerns addressed by an irrevocable bill of rights which can ensure, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religious practice and worship!

There is no case to granting an exclusive right to a minority!

If there need to be rights written into our constitution, then let it be for all Australians and not just for the religious bigots in our midst!
Alan B.

If the secularist stopped pushing their gw religion and sexual perversion down everyone's throat their would be far less need for people to say anything. The problem is activist in the name of 'safe schools' and publicly founded institutions feel the need to corrupt and steal childtren's childhood and have everyone bow to their godless ideologies.

Alan B,

<<And nowhere in this wide brown land is there an impediment to freedom of religious worship!>>

My, oh my, you have such a narrow view of religious freedom. If I took that view, you'd wrongly call me a bigot. 'Freedom of religious worship' is only one part of religious freedom in Australia. Would you consider your brand of religious freedom was experienced by Archbishop Porteous of Hobart who banned a pro-same-sex-marriage priest, Father Frank Brennan, from the Hobart diocese in 2018?

Try telling Presbyterian minister, Campbell Markham, and a fellow from his church, David Gee, who were hauled before the anti-discrimination commission that there is comprehensive religious freedom in Australia. Gee proclaims the Gospel on the streets of Hobart. Markham's comments dealt with biblical views he stated on homosexuality back in 2011, http://www.eternitynews.com.au/australia/pastor-street-preacher-face-anti-discrimination-complaint/

We need religious freedom for Christian schools and other Christian entities to hire staff who fully support their ethos. Could you imagine a Dominos pizza employee delivering a pizza to a house and leaving promotions for Pizza Hut?

Australia urgently needs a Religious Discrimination Act that gives Christian organisations full freedom to hire Christian staff. The same freedom should be offered to all other religions so they can choose staff and volunteers who support their world views.

As someone who aspires to be religious and is extremely concerned about freedom of religion, I find myself in agreement on most of the author's points. In particular with her recommendations 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,11.

The proposed law intends to privilege Christianity (or some versions thereof), rather than religion.

No law(s) can actually protect religion, because that would require a formal definition of "religion", which in turn would require a formal definition of "God" - a complete absurdity!

This legislation, if completed, would give the nonsensical illusion as if religion is now being protected - then under the cover of that illusion it will in fact be even easier to restrict and oppress religion.

Where I differ from the author, is about anti-discrimination laws - I oppose them all, nor am I happy about the inclusion of "religion" on their list. All individuals (as opposed to public institutions and other bodies that receive public funds or benefits) ought to be free to serve or employ only whomever they want, and should not even need to provide a reason. Private employers should also be able to set any conditions for employment, ridiculous as they might be, because nobody should be compelled to work for them in the first place (and hopefully this is to be supported by a better and unconditional safety-net, but I digress).

I must also protest about the author's following incorrect statement:

«It is difficult to contemplate a situation, other than one motivated by religious bigotry, where such professionals could reasonably exercise a right to conscientious objection.»

Bigotry is not a feature of religion, but rather a social phenomenon.
It is quite easy to contemplate a situation where a religious person exercises a conscientious objection, say by refusing to kill, not because they hate others who kill, but only because they personally are unwilling to take part in the act of killing.

In summary: since religion cannot be formally defined, the only effective way to reduce the restricting of religion, is to reduce legal restrictions overall.