The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > 'Inequality in a dog collar': how the Religious Discrimination Bill hands more power to the powerful > Comments

'Inequality in a dog collar': how the Religious Discrimination Bill hands more power to the powerful : Comments

By Rodney Croome, published 21/10/2019

How do proponents of the Government's appalling Bigots' Charter justify granting special legal privileges to religious people and their beliefs?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
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
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 21 October 2019 9:55:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Top marks to OLO for publishing this bit of utter tripe.

No marks st the deranged author.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 21 October 2019 10:28:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 22 October 2019 4:20:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 23 October 2019 3:20:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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!"
Posted by Armchair Critic, Thursday, 24 October 2019 2:24:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 24 October 2019 4:21:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy