Religious freedom just not include a right to discriminate on a thoroughly discredited gender ID basis, that have their fatuous foundation in inculcated, stone age belief and like a witch doctor pointing a bone? Have no currency or alleged veracity whatsoever in any truth based religion

Here's the thing, a man and a gender reassigned woman walk down the aisle? The priest nods assent and proceeds with the "sacrament" of marriage. The whole congregation weeps with joy as the love and commitment is clearly displayed!

The following week two females, one a gender reassigned male give a repeat performance. Much to the delight of the watching congregation

Yet and given a literal interpretation of the Churches man-made rules and only around three hundred years ago, all who have participated knowingly or not are complicit in a series of dreadful sins! And may have already occurred in hundreds of caseS around the world?

The marriage of two genetically male men or women!. Even where science has proven they alone as gays have genes only ever found in gays! Their reassigned genitalia alters nothing save it may more closely conform to their internal and true nature.

And just as the creator made them! All that has been actually changed is purely cosmetic and external! And given that's so/. How can religious freedom include the right to discriminate based on stone age inculcated and fatuous belief?
Alan B.

Are we being led by the nose towards voting Liberal?

Checkout this article http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-17/liberal-supporters-spreading-fake-news-in-hidden-chat-rooms/11121194

where Liberal Party supporters today are speading scare campaigns in chatrooms targeting voters in key marginal seats, by sharing misinformation on refugee intake numbers and the SAFE SCHOOLS policy.

Sounds like Pat Byrne's article today? An article which bangs on about SAFE SCHOOLS?

Dear Alan,

«How can religious freedom include the right to discriminate based on stone age inculcated and fatuous belief?»

Religious freedom means the freedom to follow God rather than to follow society and its norms.

While it is possible to be ignorant or deluded about what exactly God wants in a given situation, one is better off to follow, out of the pure and unselfish intention of their love of God, whatever they sincerely believe, even mistakenly, to be God's wishes, rather than to follow a practice, even a better practice, only because society expects it.

If you do not believe that people have the right to follow God the best they understand, then you do not believe in religious freedom.

Alan,

Yeah. Of course. Yadayada. Rights should be defended. But that's not all that relevant: what does the bible say, right or wrong, primitive or not, what is it that many Christians (backward bastards!) believe. You don't need to re-hash all that - us non-believers never believed it anyway (certainly not those cruel judgements on drunkards and fornicators), and believers will simply get hot and bothered that someone is attacking their beliefs. All a bit pointless, but quite satisfying I suppose, especially for all those who have recently un-believed.

So the critical issue surely is: has Folau the right to his opinion ? After all, he's not exhorting any government or hit-squad to exterminate or terrorise any transgressors. His quote from the bible probably offends many believers, homosexuals (are we still allowed to use that word ?), drunks, fornicators, thieves, idolators, adulterers, etc., etc. If we don't come under any of those headings, why should we give a toss ? And what the hell has it got to do with rugby ?

So yes, maybe Labor - once it's in government next week - urgently needs to reinforce basic freedoms, of expression, of opinion, of speech. Or will they expose their totalitarian side and throw Folau to the wolves by their silence ?

Joe

Come on Joe calling Christians belief's backwards is hardly accurate. Surely you have seen all the deviants prancing around at mardi gras. Now that is very backward. We read of similar stuff with Sodom and Gomorrah and the fall of Rome. Call Christian belief whatever but at least try to be accurate. And as for 'secular' beliefs? That's right it changes with the wind and uses pseudo science as a justification for every evil.

Loudmouth,

<<You don't need to re-hash all that - us (sic) non-believers never believed it anyway (certainly not those cruel judgements on drunkards and fornicators)>>

One minute after your last breath you'll wish you had listened to us. But, 'Too late, too late will be the cry', http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061021111306AA7HUct&guccounter=1