What are the "valuable services" doctors would not have to perform? Baby killing?

"The Bill overrides fair work laws by giving every budding workplace bully free rein to treat their colleagues and customers like dirt, so long as they can frame their ill-treatment of others in terms of a "statement of belief".

Evidence please.

It's about time wimps stopped being mollycoddled because they are 'offended'; and how long has 'protection' of LGBTIQ people, racial minorities, single parents been 'traditional'? It's a very new (and dangerous) thing forced on us by Marxists and their tame politicians.

The author's Bigots Charter is enough indicate that the author has nothing new to say.

However, the whole idea of protecting religion is a farce. The intent is to remove further rights to freedom of speech from 'quiet Australians'. Totalitarianism in Australia is not far below the horizon now.

AGREE! This is so wrong and those responsible should pay at the very next election! And those who promote this sort of exclusive discrimination based on the advocation of virtual cults! Need to see their congregations and services dwindle to nothing, including those commercial enterprises that in part-fund this particular brand of cult initiated persecution!

Moreover, it also demonstrates as nothing else can, why we the people and voters in this country remain the only advanced democracy that doesn't have a bill of irrevocable rights and why today's front pages are so heavily redacted as to be unreadable!

When it comes to limiting the freedom to be different? Some of those railed against, God created difference, are little better than equally perverse fascists of 1938 in Germany! There's so much spit flecked hate in so much of this BS!

Listen, in order for one to follow, evidence-free, faith-based belief on faith alone, one is honour bound to also hold open in their mind, the possibility that the opposite could also be true!

Constantine has a lot to answer for in the way he, a pagan sun-worshipper, recrafted and completely made over, original esoteric Christian faith and made it a sty in the eye of God!

Whether or not the gay-bashers, who are at the head of this "religious reformation" understand it or not, there is credible peer-reviewed scientific evidence of a gay gene, not just one, but two for certain and another three probable!

Forgive them father, for they know not what they do!
Alan B.

Hey Rodney Croome,

"But it is really about freedom for powerful pastors and prelates, slyly posing as faux victims, to force their views on the rest of us."

When you mean 'us' you mean homosexuals right?
Sorry but not everyones gay or celebrates it.
- Don't include me in your thinking -

You're no different to them.
You're trying to force your views on us as well, idiot.
You're the one trying to change the status quo and mess with other peoples lives and livlihoods.

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2019/october/christian-doc-loses-job-as-uk-judge-rules-biblical-view-of-male-and-female-violates-human-dignity-nbsp

And as for Folau, he never signed any contract that implicitly prevented him from stating his own beliefs of social media.
And Rugby Australia should never have expected him too.
- He's entitled to believe whatever he want's get over it -

http://wwos.nine.com.au/rugby/israel-folau-rugby-australia-raelene-castle-contract-mistake/7a9b4cbd-d35c-4dbf-a52c-3511ac269b69

"All those people of faith who cannot bear their religion of love being invoked to justify hate must unite across denominational boundaries."

Christians aren't trying to justify hate, they like you are just standing up for what they believe in.

Stop acting hysterical.

"Not least, we must reassert the true and original meaning of those values distorted by the "religious freedom" movement."

The bible says 'frown upon homosexuality'

- Accept it and get over it -

They're not the ones trying to change society, you are.
Their bellies are just a stumbling block for your proposed changes.

If you care so much for equality why don't you start with 'Opposing Royalty'?
There can never be 'equality' whilst one group enjoys a lifetime privilege from birth.

If you have an issue with religion, why don't you carve them up into which parts are benevolent and which parts are malevolent; but be sure to do this fairly with ALL religions.

Out of curiosity you don't happen to have a sister named Natalie do you?
Her articles seem a little hysterically driven, like yours.

Being transgender is a mental health disorder. We don’t see schools teaching kids that anorexia is normal, or that Body Dysmorphic Disorder is normal, or that Bipolar Disorder is normal, so why on earth should schools focus on transgender issues and try to convince kids that it’s normal? And most people who are against this are not overtly religious.
And why should health staff be forced to part in medical procedures they strongly believe is wrong? And that’s not necessarily connected to religion either.
You are trying to force your beliefs on others, with no consideration of their feelings or beliefs, which makes you the bigot.

Nearly 70% of Australian voted for SSM!

Yet we see this rearguard action by RELIGIOUS BIOTS and those troglodytes for who no amount of credible peer-reviewed scientific evidence, will be enough evidence!

I mean and here is the comparison.

Sir Richard Branston of Virgin Airlines tells this true story, where he invited a highly placed official of the flat earth society to a new space fight in one of his low orbit aircraft.

The flat earth official was glued to the porthole!

Upon landing, Sir Richard asked, What do you think now that you've seen the irrefutable evidence with your own eyes?

The official turned and here I paraphrase and said, the graphics were very true to life and the special effects were very believable and walked away leaving a stunned Sir Richard speechless!

This demonstrates a nothing else could, the brainwashed from birth acolytes and devotees of Constantine's cult are incapable of accepting evidence however credible or peer-reviewed that conflicts with their, brainwashed from birth, belief system! INCAPABLE!

The bible was written some 350 years after Christ walked the Earth and Constatine a pagan sun-worshipper effectively decided what books and teaching would be included and what would be left out! Thus we have a book that reflects his belief and the social mores of the day and not necessarily the unedited and unrevised teaching of the Jewish Rabbi, Jesus Christ!

Moreover, one could go to Munich to a museum there to look at the oldest version of the bible know to exist. Then compare it with any modern bible if only to understand, they are two completely different books!

Faith-based belief based on faith alone and not so much as a single shred of credible evidence requires all devotees to hold open in their minds, the possibility of the opposite of what they have been indoctrinated to believe!

Let's have a bill of rights that includes all of us rather than over-privileged, religious bigots driven by false belief!
Alan B.

Big Nana and AC,

Spot on. It's one thing to live and let live on private matters and private lives; it is a totally different matter to teach mental disorders and perversions to children as though they are normal.

Hey ttbn,

So I take it you didn't celebrate IDAHOBIT Day and run an event at your workplace like a BBQ, morning tea, trivia night or after work drinks or ask your CEO to write a blog or article in support of LGBTI staff and customers with a commitment to how your organisation is supporting LGBTIQ diversity?
No?
http://www.idahobit.org.au/index.php/workplaces

And you probably won't be celebrating or going along to Drag Queen Story Time either right?
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/sick-evil-melbourne-library-responds-to-online-abuse-over-kids-drag-storytime-event

And I guess you'd also then be outraged that this billboard was banned.
http://www.bandt.com.au/advertising/binary-australia-drag-queen-story-time-ad-banned-oma

Obviously, you must be some kind of an intolerant bigoted xenophobe.
That's just not very liberal or progressive in 2019.
Shame on you for letting the movement down.

Thankfully we can all look forward to celebrating the Gay Olympics in Sydney in 2023
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-21/sydney-wins-bid-for-worldpride-in-2023/11621850

I was not aware that any school was teaching children
about what was normal or not normal in sexual matters -
be it in sexual orientation, transgender, or anything
else. My understanding is that schools have anti-bullying
programs that try to provide a safe environment for all
children - and encourage them to treat each other with
respect and understanding. Surely that is something that
we should all approve of? Indoctrination of any kind -
be it religious or any other is not healthy.

Handing more power in legislation to religious people in a
secular country such as ours -
is a disaster for any civilised society. What about sharia
laws? Should those be legalised and allowed?

Al.

Firstly and foremostly, there is no gay gene. You say there might be. There isn't.
Moving along now.
Secondly and importantly, I note a new disturbing trend in gay rights hate speech, (which this piece is a classic example).
The new trend is drawing in single parents as on a par with homosexuals. There is totally no comparison.

Rodney Croome can lie his head off, since he has no God to be accountable to. And herein lies the context of the proposed religious protections; to protect the "conscience" of those luckily gifted with one.

The other waffle on the subject you appear to be sadly trapped in, is the seventy percent of the yes vote.
Without a doubt, after years of a relentless attack by the pro-gay mass media campaign, which sided with the cult of homosexuality, by beating up a non-existent persecution of gays etc in society, and the essential banality of the story they told as the truth over many years, I would discount out any real connection to a mass acceptance of their cause.

This piece of tripe by Rodney Cooms, is firmly and correctly filed under the heading "lies and exaggerations".

Over to you!

Dan

It gets worse. I asked my MP for clarification.
This was my question;
I recently wrote to you about the pending legislation on religious rights
and how it could affect employers. I have not yet had a reply.
I made the point about an employer who might refuse to employ a moslem
because as a moslem he approves of the Koran's exhortations to kill unbelievers wherever you find them.

As an example should the Paris police have refused employment of the moslem who a few
days ago murdered four police in the police station ?
I realise that in answering this question you will need to go out on a limb, but it is time for that !
This is the crunch line in his reply;
The Religious Discrimination Bill will make it unlawful to
discriminate against a person on the basis of their religious belief
or activity.

His reply is the law will prohibit refusing employment because of a
persons religion.
My question was do I have to employ a paerson whose religion requires
him to kill me if I refuse to join his religion.

It now seems quite clear that no matter that an applicant for job
cannot be refused because his religion requires him to kill you in
any number of different circumstances.
You would only need to say something in his hearing that was against
Islam and he would have grounds to kill you.

What have they done ?

Dear Bazz,

As far as I'm aware murder is illegal in this
country. And as we are a secular country -
religious laws don't and should not apply.

And the vixen asks:

Quote:

Q:
What about sharia laws? Should those be legalised and allowed?

A:
Yes. Under certain conditions.

Dan

The question was asked -

"What about Sharia laws? Should they be
legalised and allowed?"

And the underwater reconnaissance specialist of
frogman replied -

Yes under certain conditions.

Do tell - what those might be?

'Yes under certain conditions.

Do tell - what those might be?'

ask Yasmin Foxy. She stated clearly on the abc that Islam treated women better than anyone else. Yasmin was heralded by the abc and I know the love you have for aunty.

runner,

I shall be happy to continue conversations with you
when you have something intelligent to say.

Try again.

Or better still - don't bother.

Gawd ! I wish they'd get Religion off the streets !

Highly credentialled geneticist, Alan Saunders and his team found two genes that belong exclusively and a probable additional three, in peer-reviewed science!

Those that refuse to accept this peer-reviewed science are clearly unapologetic homophobes and gay bashers who cannot, will not accept this proven credible science, given if they did? It would identify them as brainwashed gay-bashing assholes of the first water!

Think, if an unmarried Jesus walked among us today with his predilection for the exclusive company of men and a very kind very gentle disposition, all you homophobes posting here would swear on your version of any highly edited and constantly revised, holy book that he was a homosexual! You would wouldn't you!?

No matter, let's have another referendum on SSM and this time make it front and centre of the very next state and federal election!

And if that results in a landslide victory to the Labor party in both houses!? Who should we blame!? Those responsible or some convenient scapegoat!? BRING ON THE NEXT ELECTION!
Alan B.

'Gawd ! I wish they'd get Religion off the streets !'

well you pretty well hope they stop these young girls glueing themselves to the pavement as they worship whoever this mad Greens religion mob worship.

Al b.

I understand your attachment to diversity as the gay crowd like the term, to justify their penchant for acceptance of their flawed lifestyle.

But here is a conclusion of an intense scientific study begun in 2012, and concluded with the publication of their findings in august this year, which searched without luck for the gay gene. There is none!

https://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2019/08/29/retiring-the-gay-gene-hypothesis/
(Copy and paste it).

What they did discover is the diversity of sexuality, an obvious observation to one and all in society, gained by normal social associations throughout life.
One cannot deny homosexuals exist, but why the choice?

The study concludes the choice is risk based, and has a high correlation with mental illness.

Try to get past making excuses for supporting of the demolition of marriage and it's negative impact on society.

Accept that spreading this diversity message into young minds is criminal at best, and should be stamped out, not supported in our schools particularly.

Dan

Top marks to OLO for publishing this bit of utter tripe.

No marks st the deranged author.

If I'm reading Croome's article right, his position is that in order to take down the rich and powerful who are also religious, then you also have to remove the freedom of religion from everyone. The argument being they aren't benefiting from religious freedom, so they also won't be harmed by it's absence. Crap argument because without religious freedom, no one has the right to live up to their beliefs. Instead their beliefs are handed to them by court ordered law. Call me crazy, but I don't want any more repeats of a local cake maker losing their livelihood because they didn't support gay marriage. Especially when that business is small, and the wedding cakes for homosexuals could be made by another bakery.

Lose religious rights and you lose them for the average person (all of us) regardless of any assumed loss it would mean for the more powerful in church structure. In the wake of Israel Folau, the question should be asked if he has no religious freedom I. His private time, then what hope is there that there is any religious freedom for anyone else who isn't rich.

Wake up to the threat of the day. Your beliefs and the right to believe as you see fit, are being taken away and replaced by anyone who is more powerful then you and can afford the court costs to make sure you have to live up to THEIR beliefs and standards. Some legal protection so this is not the reality we live in and have some protection should be sought after. Marking religious freedom a worth while cause. If that means that church leaders have their religious freedoms to teach and preach protected as well, great. Freedom for everyone would mean freedom for everyone. Don't squash the average joe because you hate the rich and powerful of one type or another.

I absolutely agree with Not_Now.Soon, thank you!

Some additional points:

The author speaks of "hate", but refusal to provide a service can have 99,999 other reasons besides. No individual should ever be forced to provide a service to another, and no reason need ever be required as to their choice to provide or to not provide a service to someone.

In other words, "anti-discrimination" laws have no place in any society, let alone a "liberal" one. And yes, this includes discrimination on grounds of religion: if someone is foolish enough to refuse their services to another based on the other's religion, then it is their own loss of business and a cause for shame.

Had laws been fair and reasonable to begin with, then the need would never arise to try to patch them in favour of one or the other, strong or otherwise.

For the protection of religion, there is no place for laws that include the word "religion", for the simple reason that no secular body is able (even if they desperately wanted) to discern, let alone define, what is religious and what is not (only a prophet could possibly discern that). The assumptions as if a given church is necessarily religious only because they claim to be religious, as well as if the choices of a given individual cannot be religious-based just because s/he has no organisation to back them up, are both ridiculous. Let there be freedom for all to do as they choose, because [in the absence of prophets] this is the only way to ensure religious freedom!

Hey Not_Now.Soon,

The Religious Freedom issue, shouldn't be characterised just by the Christian bakers;
- It's too small a frame of reference, only one side of the argument.

The bigger picture is this:

Christian Bakers AND Muslim Taxi Drivers.

You see under 'equality' if Christian bakers say:
"I don't want to make your stupid rainbow cake! Go find another bakery!";
- Then Muslim taxi drivers can tell a blind Australian woman with a guide dog:
"That mutt's not getting in here! Ping-ding lady, go get another cab!"

To Armchair Critic.

Is the taxi driver situation one that's already happened? Or are you thinking proactively, looking for possible issues in the future?

As far as I'm concerned the issue can rest with recent examples. Israel Folau not being able to give his religous beliefs in his privite time, and the baker refusing service are events that make the case that there needs to be protections made. If there are taxi drivers that are an issue too, I'm sure there's a way to work around it without forcing an unjust value system on people.

I'll give you one that I am aware of that I know has happened, around the time of the Christian baker case. In the US marriage can be made through religous services or through a state office. In one case, a gay couple went to the place that eye can get a marriage license through a government building. The clerk refused that couple even though homosexual marriage was recently passed in that state. The person list their job because of it.

This is where the rubber hit the road in my opinion. Where freedom of religion reaches it's limits to because it hampers the services allowed by the government. There would be simular limits if all bakers refused service or all taxi drivers refused service. Because that would mean that the person looking for a taxi or a wedding cake, can't find an alternate person to help them. Anything less then that either restricts freedom of religion unfairly, or is a gray area where taxi companies might have a policy for their workers to abide by while on the job.

Dear Critic,

«"I don't want to make your stupid rainbow cake! Go find another bakery!"»

But how about:

"Sorry Sir, but my religion prevents me from making your cake - how about you try 5 shops down the other side?"

The assumed element of hatred need not be there.

«"That mutt's not getting in here! Ping-ding lady, go get another cab!"»

This is insulting, but how about:

«Sorry Lady, I cannot take you with the dog because I was traumatised by a dog in my childhood and still twitch in their presence so I cannot drive safely when one is near - how about you wait here and I will try to call my friend who can take you? Would you like a drink meanwhile?»

Rodney,

You have been a staunch advocate for the LGBTIQ+ community for many years. Your presuppositions pervaded your article, including this example:

<<When explaining themselves, the Bill's defenders repeat the name of a wealthy celebrity rugby player, Israel Folau, who had his contract cancelled after he deliberately and repeatedly broke its terms, terms he had agreed to, by damning LGBTIQ people to Hell.>>

The Sydney Morning Herald refuted what you stated here:

"Rugby Australia chief executive Raelene Castle ditched a late attempt to have Israel Folau sign a contract addendum prohibiting offensive social media use, a report says.

"The Sydney Morning Herald reported that Castle had intended to present Folau with the addendum during a meeting in London last November [2018], one month after he had signed a new $4 million, four-year contract. It never happened. Folau was first presented with the addendum the day after signing his contract, October 10, but was advised against signing it by his agent, Isaac Moses", http://wwos.nine.com.au/rugby/israel-folau-rugby-australia-raelene-castle-contract-mistake/7a9b4cbd-d35c-4dbf-a52c-3511ac269b69

Not_Now.Soon,

There have been situations in Australia (and overseas) of 'Muslim cabbies refusing the blind and drinkers', http://www.news.com.au/national/muslim-cabbies-refusing-the-blind-and-drinkers/news-story/031137906f88be4ab6d52650d3b9841f

To OzSpen

Thank you for the link.