I don't think they ever intended to protect religious freedoms.
If they planned to do so, they would've debated the 'fine print' first.
I think this thing was more or less a stitch up from the start just like Turnbull's infamous call to Trump.
"We'll get majority support for SSM, then give a show of attempting to push the 'religious freedoms' though after we have a mandate, but we'll let them fail."

Get majority support;
Deal with 'fine print' administratively and let them fail.

Seriously? I'm the only person who doesn't realise that we've had this article and this discussion before?

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=19440
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19440

At the moment it feels like I'm stuck in a time loop but only I realise it... like the dude in Groundhog Day. Could somebody who can remember what they read a week ago confirm that I'm not going mad, and that the screwballs are the people who seem to oblivious to the fact that this all happened last week as well.

«A person who does not wish to participate in a same-sex wedding is doing so because they do not support the idea»

Well this is just ONE possible reason.

There could be dozen other reasons, where one could support the idea of same-sex weddings, but wouldn't or couldn't support actual such weddings in person.

Sadly the title of the article is "Freedom to discriminate", which doesn't sound that good - but is this the only freedom the author cares about?

Toni: It matters not if we've had this conversation before or whether or not there's a scientifically proven genetic basis to homosexuality. The brainwashed remain absolutely unable to accept either evidence to the contrary or the will of the majority!INTELLECTUALLY INCAPABLE!

And like all brainwashed members of absolutist cults, that have no basis in the truth, remain true to their brainwashed from birth belief! Absolutely refuse point blank to even look at the evidence to the contrary! ABSOLUTELY!

These are the swine we were warned not to cast our pearls before and as you are unable to get them to just take their fingers out of their ears and remove the blindfold! Then engage the brain even if that forces previously unused cerebral circuits to smoke?

As they consider, perhaps for the very first time in an entire lifetime? THAT THEY AND THEIR STONE AGE BELIEFS ARE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

And given they are intellectually incapable of any of the above!

Suggest you and I and all the other still sane folk commenting here? Just allow the rest of this risible FOAM FLECKED rubbish go through to the keeper?

And our turn to say, we shall not, we shall not be moved! We shall not, we shall not be moved!
Alan B.

I accept that homosexuality is genetic as is heterosexuality but I also accept that as some homosexuals chose heterosexuality, as a free choice, so do some genetical heterosexuals choose homosexuality.

Or am I wrong, and if so, why?

I accept that you accept gender bias has as a cause, genetic origins!

I also accept that you could be entirely wrong when you say people can and do chose to swing either way as a matter of free will.

But rather under extreme physiological distress, i.e., being told that your normal responses/reactions are abnormal and from the first urges of puberty or being bashed into compliance via physical duress!?

That said, does that then justify discrimination on the basis of mere self serving suspicion!?

We shall not, we shall not be moved, we shall not, we shall not be moved!
Alan B.