Paul,

I'm not sure what relevance this story from 40 years ago has today other than to demonstrate that appalling hypocrisy is not limited to the greens who pushed for Israel Folau to be fired for far less.

The freedom of religion act is primarily to prevent people from voicing their religious beliefs (within limits) without being arbitrarily persecuted. Such as the catholic priest that a moron left whinger tried to prosecute for publishing Catholic doctrine.

SM, nothing out does the accused pedophile LIBERAL CABINET MINISTER, accused of raping a 16 year old girl. The alleged grub is not seeking re-election. Why is that?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I think I justifiably conflated religious with faith-based for this particular topic. Perhaps you are being a little overly semantic.

Especially given a large majority of faith-based schools and hospitals in Australia are Catholic, something undeniably a religious order, then I feel my point stands.

You opine: “I would feel antagonistic towards such people/organisations (both cases), and urge others to shun them and avoid their services, but I would not go as far as making stupidity illegal, assuming that these signs were only placed within their own private property.”

However if such an organisation, for instance the Catholic Church which is taking billions of dollars of taxpayer’s money and often being the only provider of services in a particular area, then shunning them or erecting a large fence around their premises is hardly feasible is it.

Do you have a realistic answer?

Dear SteeleRedux,

«Perhaps you are being a little overly semantic.»

Well, I think that this distinction is very pertinent to this discussion and the proposed law: Does that law seek to protect religion or does it seek to protect faith (and faith-groups) - these can be quite different!

«Especially given a large majority of faith-based schools and hospitals in Australia are Catholic, something undeniably a religious order»

Well I challenge that assumption.

I personally know Catholics for whom Catholicism indeed functions as a religion.
But is Catholicism as a whole, including the Catholic Church, indeed a religious order, or is that only what they claim? Another possibility is that Catholicism indeed used to be religious at certain periods and/or in certain places, but may not be so today or everywhere.

Just because an organisation, large as it may be, claims to be religious, does not automatically guarantee that indeed it is.

«However if such an organisation, for instance the Catholic Church which is taking billions of dollars of taxpayer’s money and often being the only provider of services in a particular area, then shunning them or erecting a large fence around their premises is hardly feasible is it.

Do you have a realistic answer?»

Yes, that's a very easy question: since they accept public funds, they are a public organisation, not a private one, and as such they must comply with public standards, which include not to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation.

Hi Steele,

In the case of payment of compensation to the multitude of victims of CATHOLIC PAEDOPHILES the Church argued that it consisted of many Incorporated Entities and could not be sued directly! It suggested the victims go off and sue the OLD COCKS, or their HOLY ORDERS as such, and keep their grubby hands out of the bulging Church coffers!

Can't be fairer than that, would you not agree?

SM, a more recent case,

An old Parish Priest who was exposing himself to young primary school children at the attached school. When it got too much for even the Church, the old paedophile was quietly moved on to a Church residence to live out his remaining years in comfort. The problem was the Church gave the old bastard a car, and he kept returning to the school, and entering the playground, as had been his custom for years beforehand. Obviously seeking the "love" of the little children.

The police should have been called, and having the bastard arrested, that was never done.

Pauliar,

Compared to the actual multiple senior green paedophiles which is much much worse.

As for Porter about whom you frequently lie through your teeth, firstly
sex by an adult with someone below 14 is paedophilia, and above 16 is the age of legal consent at which statutory rape no longer exists.

And as Porter didn't even have sex with the psychotic woman once again you are a liar and a fraud.