Dear Yuyutsu,

I completely agree.

I think you rightly pointed to the question of whether or not a business, or school etc, receives financial benefits (including tax advantages) from the state in an open society. The baker probably does not, a private, e.g. Catholic, school does, so it should be clearly stated under what conditions those benefits are granted. If unacceptable to the Church then it should have the courage to refuse them with the possible consequence of the school(s) going bankrupt. On the other hand, the state should also be aware of the consequences of loosing the service provided by e.g. Catholic schools (after all, they teach also things useful for the whole society, like science and mathematics).

Anyhow, I am aware that this is much more complicated than the case of our baker.

Congratulations Babette for a well researched article ofthe negative effects foisted on Australian public by self-interested agendas. These include politicians, trendies, big businesses protecting their market share from homosexuals and homosexuals and lesbians who demand non-discriminatory rights.

Homo means man and phobia means fear of. How this has been hijacked to be the catch all discriminatory label of those being in disagreement with lesbian and homosexual agendas to now mean hate of, rather than fear of and homosexuals is an interesting marketing exercise.

The vested interests have I admit, done a wonderful job of ‘sanitising’ the sexuality preferences of homosexuals away from any sensible debate or opinion into a sacrosanct right that MUST have no opponents.

The sooner those that have opposite views collectively start to counter the rot the better off will our society be.

Discrimination is something we all practice whether we are homosexual, straight, or whatever. Parents discriminate daily about who it is best for their children to mix with; the law discriminates against adults having sex with children, etc., etc. Discrimination is both a right and a responsibility and should not be sullied by vociferous demands of one group who are but a small minority of our society.

I would be interested to receive comments of those who see any value in ‘inventing’ by repeated usage of an opposite word of ‘homophobic’ or ‘homophobes’ such as ‘Christophobes’ or Christophobic’ meaning those that disagree but not ‘hate’ with the homosexual lobby group.

Inaction by traditional families and traditional adherents to heterosexual marriage will only allow the so-called parliamentary representatives to vote in this nonsensical agenda.

Protest to your federal politician advising them that unless they adhere to the protection of marriage to define heterosexual partnerships that you and your friends will NOT vote for them nor their parties.

You may also wish to email all the targeted companies so that they get the message that their income could be threatened more by heterosexual adherents of marriage boycotting their products. Or could this be discriminatory.

The frog is getting warmer in the pot

This could all be settled by a referendum on the four big issues with which most Western governments (not just Australian) are completely out of sync with majority opinion - same sex marriage, taking abortion off the statute books, legalising marijuana and voluntary assisted euthanasia.

All indications are that these would all be passed with substantial majorities if a referendum were held tomorrow. How we arrived at this point is no longer important. We are here now.

All the 'bullying' and PC badgering incidents reported by the author (and these are definitely happening in many Western countries at present) are mostly the result of cultural fault lines created by societies in transition.