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?