This woman is a member of the Rational Society of Australia. Does anyone think that it is rational to kick off by accusing our government of deliberately "sanctioning new discriminations against citizens needing hospital care and against older Australians needing aged care". What comes next? Gas chambers? Nobody could have more contempt for politicians than I do, but I think that statement is absurd and slanderous. After being granted the right to indulge in same sex marriage, she is now jumping the gun and assuming that she and her partner will be discriminated against via religious discrimination bills.

Why would 'secular' people concern themselves with Christian organisations that might be able to decline dealings with same sex couples? Get over it, and go elsewhere like other non-religious people. You can be as secular and disbelieving as you want, but don't expect others to bend their beliefs for you.

Oh, and were you not paid for all this "public service and caring about the wellbeing of fellow citizens" that you think should give you a leg up? You were both "professionals", not people providing services for nothing out of the goodness of your hearts.

Your complaining is hypocritical. Your secular chickens might be coming home to roost.

ttbn jumps from anxiety about fair treatment to gas chambers. Says it all really. If religious hospitals and aged care places want to discriminate against some taxpayers, then they should not get taxpayers funds.

We live in a free market. People have the option to choose where they wish to live and who they wish to provide services. The reverse is also true. Service providers have the right to choose who they wish to accommodate.
Forcing people to act against their true beliefs and and accept values and dictates they don’t believe in not only increases divisions but leads to dictatorship.
Demanding inclusiveness whilst refusing to include other people’s beliefs is sheer hypocrisy.

I absolutely agree with the premise and tenor of the article.

If these so-called religious organisations want to discriminate on the basis of race, religion or the sexual bias you were born with, then they ought at the very least lose any form of government funding or tax relief not available to other income-earning BUSINESS ENTERPRISE!

If they feel any right is actually threatened!? Then a universal declaration of irrevocable rights, written into our constitution, would protect all their rights and ours!

I am like many other Aussies. If I am ever condemned to residential aged care/gulags for the old and frail, my rallies are liable to find me swinging from a rafter.

I mean, it costs a quarter of residential aged care to keep folk comfortable in their own homes and what most of the voting aged population wants! And only requires some of current aged care funding be reassigned, not added to!

One cannot understand the current government's perceived extreme reluctance to have a royal commission or change the funding paradigm in favour of, in-home care.

It would be understandable if some ministers had a conflict of interests and some of their family trust investments in for-profit aged care, then all of the history pertaining to this issue would suddenly make perfect sense!?

Finally, if we are to subside aged care? Then let it be directed exclusively at the not for profit sector and in-home aged care!

Old people still vote and have better memories than many in the government realize! And willing to be most vocal when the next poll tha counts comes around!

Time for this unresponsive, reactionary, tinned-eared, recalcitrant, non-empathetic government to start listening to those who employ them rather than the lobbyist and those who try to corrupt them with the modern equivalent of forty pieces of silver?

There could be other logical explanations for outcomes? But none are self-evident, save the inmates have taken over and are now running the asylum?
Alan B.

So Big Nana. If the flat earth society were to decide they wanted t run a few private profit-earning enterprises schools, hospitals and highly profitable hugely subsidised aged care.

And using your arguments, should they be allowed to positively discriminate against round Earthers who didn't share their belief based convictions? Or cherry-pick staff when their so-called belief-based employment paradigm was challenged by some serious expertise shortfall? And where your entire argument falls flat on its face!

Finally, were Jesus here and able to inject a little sanity into this debate, he would say, I believe, we will not now or ever discriminate against anyone for any reasons of skin tone, colour, slant eyes, racial exclusion, culture, religious practise, left-handedness or the sexuality you were born with! Not ever! Amen.
Alan B.

"Demanding inclusiveness whilst refusing to include other people’s beliefs is sheer hypocrisy."

Very true, Big Nana. Some people think it's all about them, whining about their beliefs and minority behaviour, but paying no heed whatever to the beliefs, and the rights of others. The are just not rational.

Alan, as I said, it’s a free market we live in. The flat earthers can offer what they want and the round earthers have the same right. People then have the right to choose who they wish to deal with.
Given that you believe the majority of people would be round earthers, then the flat earth businesses wouldn’t make much profit would they?

To Yvonne,

I believe in fairness for everyone;
- But I'm not sure whether this is fairness or the opposite of fairness
- "They don't care about us or our beliefs so why should we care about them or theirs".

Their seems to be this endless march to deliberately attack any church, any religious school, or religious hospital by the poofter brigade.

I think in the old days, the church may have been the only building in town to provide safety and sanctuary for those in need and from there, it was the church who, despite all of their indiscretions went on to help provide health care to the sick and educate the kids.
They were also the ones to go to third world countries and try to help the people there with money from their congregations back at home.

It's a different world now, and we have different measures in place to help the worlds poor through government foreign aid.
Whilst I understand that in a capitalist society people may still want religious education (and they should have a right to that) I'm not so sure there's a need for religious hospitals.
That said, on a per capita basis it shouldn't matter.
If religious private schools were to get exactly the same amount per student as non-religious private schools; and both of them got exactly the same as public schools - per student - then all that would matter would be peoples personal preference.
In a Capitalist society there's nothing to stop you gays opening a pro-gay hospital or pro-gay private school and fairness dictates you should get exactly the same funding as any other school or hospital.
I'd support that.

What I don't support is you imposing your beliefs on others.
The Catholic Church is not imposing it's beliefs upon you, its a Capitalist society and you're completely free to choose a service provider that does support you and your health needs 100%.

[Cont.]

The 'right to not be refused service on the basis of race, religion and gender' is probably what has brought us to this point.

But in a Capitalist society.
I should be able to choose what I want.

What if I want to pay extra to have private hospital cover,
But lets say I want to go to a White Australian only, Non religious Hospital that only recognises 2 sexes - male and female;

- And there's a demand for that, and I'm willing to pay for it
Then why cant I have that?

You really can't balance a 'right no not refuse service' without restricted my right under capitalism to have whatever I want.

If demand exists for a Religious School or a Non-Religious School or a Public School system;
Or same for hospitals;
Then what the hell does any of it it matter so long as government funding is distributed equally?

The Bigger Issue

Religious doctors who don't wish to refer to a 6ft bearded man in a dress as 'Miss' or 'Mrs' will be out of a job;
- No matter how long they worked there previously.
I don't think they should have to cop that, for you.
- And I'm not even religious -
Honestly you can have all your fairytale 71 genders;
'Gender Questioning' (I don't know what I am) is now an actual gender.
You can have all that stuff outside the hospital;
But in the hospital you should be referred to as your XX or XY chromosomes denote.

Stop trying to impose what you believe on everyone else.

Go build your own hospital.
Start with a gay clinic and build up.
I'm sure there'll be demand.

To Yvonne.

I understand your worry about a hospital visit with your partner, and trying to protect that if/when you or your partner gets hospitalized. They are in a vulnerable state and having someone there to look after them is good for both the person in the hospital, as well as for those who care for the hospitalized person.

That's a real concern, and in those situations I see your point. However, that is not the only situation to be considered. ArmChair Critic made the point of doctors losing their jobs if they call a patient the wrong gender; and that the arguments for fairness to LGB (and gender confused) have reached passed their limit of anything fair.

A third point to consider is to look for a buffer so that a sue happy population doesn't have the chance to run your care facilities into the ground. It's become very evident that the LGB (and associated) population are ready and willing to gun down anyone in courts for not toeing the line of their sensitivities. If lobbyists see this threat for what it's actually been towards other professions, then they can see the threat to their own for a sue happy people looking to "fight the good fight" and throw people under the bus in the name of their cause.

To say it more plainly, if there weren't high profile homosexual court cases harming the rights of others, then there wouldn't be an effort to protect people from the life shattering cause of homosexual adherence. This is where the movement has come to. It's not about fairness anymore, if it ever was. Regardless if that means you might be worried about hospital policy on visitations to a proficient doctor or hospital that you want to care for your mate.

I'm sorry, but if you want a better stance for your cause, then your cause for LGB (+whoever else), needs to put away their claws. They aren't the hapless victims anymore, but are the aggressors.

And for all the clowns in the equality circus that voted for gay marriage...suck eggs!

Dan.

The choice of organisation from which one seeks support is an entirely individual matter.

Would a person wanting to buy and consume an alcoholic drink demand to be served by Alcoholics Anonymous?

Many people said that, after they wrecked the tradition of marriage, they would still want more - they would never be satisfied.

And, here we are.

If religious hospitals and aged care places want to discriminate against some taxpayers..

President, Rationalist Society of Australia,
So, are these places accepting people from various faiths ? What if an elderly person in need of care doesn't have sufficient funding, will they still be accepted ? Or, does it depend on how much tax they have paid or have? Is good will or plain business or as I assume, both?
Just asking because of the many reports that seem to focus on the antics of some aged care facilities. Personally I think such facilities should be included in Pension/Super fund arrangements in case it is required. No-one can honestly say Australians who don't exploit negative gearing aren't paying enough tax. They do, the evidence is in the benefits afforded to bureaucrats & public servants !

My spouse has had major surgeries at a Catholic hospital.
Yvonne Patterson,
Why did he choose a Catholic Hospital ? Didn't he have sufficient faith in Public hospitals ?

Ironically, the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Australian National Imams Council and the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia, say the bill in its current form will "diminish the religious freedom of faith groups in Australia". So, perhaps the government should stop spending their time, and our money, on a flawed, clumsy policy, and start shoring up freedom of speech and expression for everyone.

And, I agree with individual: what the hell are people doing complaining about Christian organisations they don't believe in and generally hold in contempt.

If religious freedom is to be enshrined in law?

Then the simple way is to have a referendum to change the constitution to include a bill of rights applicable to all. One of those irrevocable rights could include the right to practise your preferred religion or faith-based, belief-based, superstition. And the right to free speech. Freedom of the press.

Free speech cannot include picketing medical clinics and loudly deploring their activities interfering with the freedom of others to choose how they manage their fertility!

. As for flat earthers and their profitability? Probably not. But then they'd probably get no very generous government subsidies, nor highly preferential tax treatment? Both of which must be withdrawn from any agency that intends to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, culture, left-handedness or the sexuality you were born with!
Alan B.

Shouldn't we start with the definition of religion ? Greed & hunger for power & control over others do not qualify as religion to me.

Individual: Hear, hear and well said! Nailed it!
Alan B.

amazing that you have a moral base to define religion Individual. I wonder where that comes from? Seems to me atheist simply pick and choose. I mean murdering babies hidden by skin seems not to bother most god deniers and yet they moralise about other issues. Oh well maybe the bible is accurate about man's depravity. Your definition certainly is accurate of the global warming religion.

Whoa! This topic is not about religion (Christianity which is the most reviled religion), but about people - like this 'rationalist' mob - demanding something from a religion they sneer at and condemn. Super dooper hypocrites and people lacking integrity and the courage of their claimed convictions.

maybe the bible is accurate about man's depravity.
runner,
Religious, hypocritical, depraved are pretty much all the same wouldn't you say ?

'Religious, hypocritical, depraved are pretty much all the same wouldn't you say ?'

no Individual not unless you use the leftist perversion of language to change the meaning of religious. Many secularist are religious when it comes to football or the gw religion. Just a matter of interpretation. I notice you never answered where you got your moral base from.

runner,
there's only one perversion & that's the one when humans behave inhumane !

runner,
and, many religions are inhumane because they go against human nature ! Just look at those who insist parents who can't feed their babies to continue that dreadful trend imposed upon by, you guessed right, religious fanatics ! Just because you et al have this fanatical believes you ignore so much suffering ! Yes, very religious indeed !

Yvonne,

The case against the religious discrimination bill has been full of what-if scenarios but completely devoid of actual instances of discrimination by religious institutions.

On the other side, there have been plenty of instances where religious institutions have been persecuted/sued by activists for stating their beliefs.