This woman is a member of the Rational Society of Australia. Does anyone think that it is rational to kick off by accusing our government of deliberately "sanctioning new discriminations against citizens needing hospital care and against older Australians needing aged care". What comes next? Gas chambers? Nobody could have more contempt for politicians than I do, but I think that statement is absurd and slanderous. After being granted the right to indulge in same sex marriage, she is now jumping the gun and assuming that she and her partner will be discriminated against via religious discrimination bills.

Why would 'secular' people concern themselves with Christian organisations that might be able to decline dealings with same sex couples? Get over it, and go elsewhere like other non-religious people. You can be as secular and disbelieving as you want, but don't expect others to bend their beliefs for you.

Oh, and were you not paid for all this "public service and caring about the wellbeing of fellow citizens" that you think should give you a leg up? You were both "professionals", not people providing services for nothing out of the goodness of your hearts.

Your complaining is hypocritical. Your secular chickens might be coming home to roost.

ttbn jumps from anxiety about fair treatment to gas chambers. Says it all really. If religious hospitals and aged care places want to discriminate against some taxpayers, then they should not get taxpayers funds.

We live in a free market. People have the option to choose where they wish to live and who they wish to provide services. The reverse is also true. Service providers have the right to choose who they wish to accommodate.
Forcing people to act against their true beliefs and and accept values and dictates they don’t believe in not only increases divisions but leads to dictatorship.
Demanding inclusiveness whilst refusing to include other people’s beliefs is sheer hypocrisy.

I absolutely agree with the premise and tenor of the article.

If these so-called religious organisations want to discriminate on the basis of race, religion or the sexual bias you were born with, then they ought at the very least lose any form of government funding or tax relief not available to other income-earning BUSINESS ENTERPRISE!

If they feel any right is actually threatened!? Then a universal declaration of irrevocable rights, written into our constitution, would protect all their rights and ours!

I am like many other Aussies. If I am ever condemned to residential aged care/gulags for the old and frail, my rallies are liable to find me swinging from a rafter.

I mean, it costs a quarter of residential aged care to keep folk comfortable in their own homes and what most of the voting aged population wants! And only requires some of current aged care funding be reassigned, not added to!

One cannot understand the current government's perceived extreme reluctance to have a royal commission or change the funding paradigm in favour of, in-home care.

It would be understandable if some ministers had a conflict of interests and some of their family trust investments in for-profit aged care, then all of the history pertaining to this issue would suddenly make perfect sense!?

Finally, if we are to subside aged care? Then let it be directed exclusively at the not for profit sector and in-home aged care!

Old people still vote and have better memories than many in the government realize! And willing to be most vocal when the next poll tha counts comes around!

Time for this unresponsive, reactionary, tinned-eared, recalcitrant, non-empathetic government to start listening to those who employ them rather than the lobbyist and those who try to corrupt them with the modern equivalent of forty pieces of silver?

There could be other logical explanations for outcomes? But none are self-evident, save the inmates have taken over and are now running the asylum?
Alan B.

So Big Nana. If the flat earth society were to decide they wanted t run a few private profit-earning enterprises schools, hospitals and highly profitable hugely subsidised aged care.

And using your arguments, should they be allowed to positively discriminate against round Earthers who didn't share their belief based convictions? Or cherry-pick staff when their so-called belief-based employment paradigm was challenged by some serious expertise shortfall? And where your entire argument falls flat on its face!

Finally, were Jesus here and able to inject a little sanity into this debate, he would say, I believe, we will not now or ever discriminate against anyone for any reasons of skin tone, colour, slant eyes, racial exclusion, culture, religious practise, left-handedness or the sexuality you were born with! Not ever! Amen.
Alan B.

"Demanding inclusiveness whilst refusing to include other people’s beliefs is sheer hypocrisy."

Very true, Big Nana. Some people think it's all about them, whining about their beliefs and minority behaviour, but paying no heed whatever to the beliefs, and the rights of others. The are just not rational.