I have a simpler solution - get rid of anti-discrimination legislation. The cure is worse than the disease, by far. Having a law passed in one's favour is a great privilege, and here we see the privilege being abused to coerce others.

I see no moral difference between a homophobe wanting to pass a law against homosexuality and a homosexual wanting to pass a law against homophobia. In both cases they want to use the law to coerce people whose views or behaviour they do not approve of. The argument for removing laws against homosexuality, based on freedom of private behaviour, cannot be sustained if it means that the parents of children going to a private school cannot select they type of person teaching their children. To force the school to employ, say, an unmarried mother, an avowed atheist, or a homosexual teacher even though that goes against the school's ethos seems a far greater violation of "rights" than the putative "discrimination" which may arise as a result.

Otherwise, it is a case of "rights for me, but not for thee."

As for other alleged cases of "discrimination", I think society has advanced to the point where real discrimination is best dealt with by social censure rather than the law. So I favour removing the law entirely.

||

What has a persons sexuality have to do, with the field of work they are in. Surely it is the qualifications and standards that that individual can contribute, to the benefit of the student.
We as members of the community, first and foremost have an obligation to the betterment of our community for all.

parallel, you raise two long-discredited misconceptions.

First misconception: if exemptions to anti-discrimination laws are removed, private schools will be forced to hire atheists, homosexuals and unmarried mothers.

This is a scare tactic. In Tasmania, where exemptions to anti-discrimination laws are not granted on the grounds of sexuality, religious bodies are hiring employees the same way everyone else does. They write a job description, a set of selection criteria, and an advertisement. Then they interview, and offer the job to the best applicant. In Tasmania no-one is required to hire homosexuals – it simply is not permitted to refuse to hire the best candidate because s/he is homosexual.

In the other states and territories, if an employee is later found to be homosexual (or atheist, or unmarried mother), that employee can be fired out of hand. In Tasmania, the employee can only be dismissed for inappropriate behaviour. If the employee is behaving appropriately, meeting the requirements of the job description, then the employer has absolutely no problem.

This has been working well for over ten years now.

Second misconception: Anti-discrimination laws grant special rights to minorities.

If you're able-bodied, you don't need to wonder for long how protections against discrimination on the grounds of disability benefit you. Anyone can become disabled, any time. If you're a man, protection from gender discrimination might seem of little use, except that the benefits to women in your family will presumably flow on to you too.

In the case of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, you do benefit. In every state and territory except NSW discrimination is prohibited on the grounds of sexuality. This means that you cannot be disadvantaged because you are perceived to be, or indeed are, heterosexual. Or homosexual. In 2002 an attempt to change the NSW Anti-discrimination Act to protect "sexuality" rather than "homosexuality" failed.

Finally, allow me to provide you with a parallel, parallel:

"I see no moral difference between an anti-semite wanting to pass a law against Judaism and a Jew wanting to pass a law against anti-semitism."

Still unable to see a moral difference?

Good article. I agree with those who suggest that religious groups should be able to discriminate against those who do not conform to their beliefs and strictures, but that the corollary to this is that they should receive no tax breaks or funding from government sources, nor should discriminatory religious groups be eligible to contract to provide publicly funded services.

Given the extent to which mostly Christian organisations and churches have insinuated themselves into our health, education and welfare services - particularly during the Howard years - this might provide them with a financial incentive to modify their discriminatory ideologies in order to continue to suck off the public teat. Otherwise, they could simply fade into the ideologically obscure background where they belong.

Either result would be better than the current situation.

Good article.
And CJ Morgan, I agree with what you say. Let's see how long the discrimination lasts when the tax breaks and money stop.

Discrimination means choice. The Anti discrimination act should be scrapped as it is in itself an inverse form discrimination. If I own a business it is my business. If I choose at my loss not to deal with someone that is my call not the government’s .Yet the law says you cannot make a choice, so much for liberty and freedom of action. An organisation that has as it values opposition to homosexuality, divorce, polygamy or paedophilia cannot be expected to employ someone who values diametrically opposes the organisations culture. If you do not like that organisations values do not join it.