The following quote from the author is pure paranoia:

"Indeed, will Andrews force all Islamic schools and madrassas to provide non-halal foods and alcohol for their non-Muslim staff and employees? Surely to insist that an infidel be forced to eat only Islamic-approved food is the height of discrimination and inequality, right Dan? We sure don't want that happening."

If an islamic school chooses to only serve halal food in their cafeteria, or requires staff to not bring pork to school, then that's not discrimination. It becomes discrimination when the school wants to sack a staff member who chooses to eat pork in their own private time.

Similarly, if a catholic school wants it's teachers to not discuss contraception with students, then that's not discrimination. It becomes discrimination when they want to sack the teacher for using contraception in their private life.

Let's go back to the beginning: the dilemma is that if, hypothetically, Christian or Muslim organisations are forced to employ homosexuals somehow, then homosexual organisations should be forced to employ Christians or Muslims. [For homosexuals, read also: feminists, atheists, Marxists, etc.]

In the interests of diversity and inclusiveness, what would be wrong with that ? Admittedly, it may lead to indecision about who throws whom off tall buildings, or whether or not both Christ and Muhammad, by virtue of having no children or heirs, were actually homosexuals, or perhaps didn't even exist. No, that might offend Christians, Muslims AND homosexuals.

Christian and Muslim schools exist legally, and have some autonomy, and thereby are free to teach their beliefs to children who enrol, AND to require teachers to teach those beliefs. I don't know if those teachers have enough autonomy to teach, say, something similar to what is taught in non-religious schools, even if it conflicts with the school's teachings.

If so, perhaps a homosexual teacher in, say, a Muslim school would have the freedom to teach that it is not okay to throw homosexuals off tall buildings, or for feminist teachers to teach that it is not okay to burn young girls who refuse to be sex slaves in cages. Or, I suppose, for an atheist teacher to instruct his pupils to question whether or not there is a god, or gods, at all. And if they were sacked for doing so, they could have a case against wrongful dismissal.

And of course, it should be mandatory for homosexual, transgender, etc. x 57, feminist and atheist organisations to employ priests, parsons and imams on the same terms. After all, discrimination is so hurtful.

OR we could let sleeping dogs lie. Each to his own. Let a hundred weeds contend.

Joe

Has anyone actually read the Act 2010 s 82 and the amendments?
It means a religious school can't refuse the fire-brigade sending lesbian Buddhist Canadians to rescue the Holy Relic Skinhead from a burning Dogma Kennel. Religion of the school is absolutely protected - you knew that.

And what about intolerant statist bigotry? What are we doing about that? Why should people have the blind worship of the state shoved down their throats?

And why not make *all* discrimination illegal? Better still, a criminal offence?

So Bill Muehlenberg wants to retain the rights of bigots to be bigots.

What a completely inane argument he makes. Although to be fair to Mr. Meuhlenberg, anyone who thinks that Cory Bernardi's views are "backed by the facts" has clearly got a problem separating fiction from reality.

Kevin Donnelly is just as bad.

"Parents seeking a religious education for their children have every right to expect that the teachers employed, the curriculum, and the broader school environment accord with the moral and ethical teachings of their particular faith."

In fact parents have no such right, as that would be discriminatory. They have every right to choose a school that suits their way of thinking and to remove their children from schools if they don't like its ethos. They have no right to dictate the legal out of school activities of teachers.

I am reminded amongst all this hoopla the evidence being given to the Child Abuse Royal Commission where it appears that religious organisations did indeed have homosexuals teaching in their schools and when these individuals abused children in their care, the religious authorities hushed it up.

It is almost as if there is some sort of reality disconnect going on here.

It's strange that an atheist, Marxist government like the goons in Victoria would bother themselves with religion. Control and hatred, I suppose. Even the South Australia Marxist government doesn't bother with such things.The Catholic college where my wife finished her working life didn't query her non-Catholisicm or that of any other teachers. The Muslim parents in the area, who sent their kids there did so for education superior to the state schools around them. The Muslim kids went along to the rare masses read during the rare visits from a bishop, and they were probably as bored as the Catholic, Protestant and atheist students and teachers were. What are these atheists scared of?