Well said foxydude.

And this issue has got nothing to do with tax breaks. That's an entirely different discussion. Churches should get tax breaks primarily because of their end goals- providing a service to the community, rather than making profits.

Trav, do you have hard facts that religous organisations receiving taxpayers money, are not profit making, when they do not produce annual financial reports.
Accordingly is it moral that these organisations receiving public money, should be exempt from law when they can pick, choose and dictate who they employ.

"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."

Not true. The Trade Practices Act restricts who you can choose not to deal with, and in addition to anti-discrimination laws, there are many other restrictions on how you can choose to run your business.

"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."

First, sexuality and marital status are completely irrelevant in determining whether or not someone can do a job effectively. They also tell us absolutely nothing about a person's values.

Second, law-abiding citizens don't practise polygamy or paedophilia. Law-abiding employers who are aware that an applicant for a position in their organisation is engaging in criminal behaviour have no need of exemptions to anti-discrimination laws. All they need do is call the police.

Third, organisations are expected to employ the best applicant for the position they are trying to fill. This is best for the organisation, best for all the applicants, and best for society. It results in robust, well-functioning organisations, individuals employed where they are most effective, and a society that is seen to value transparency and fairness. Religious bodies' exemptions to anti-discrimination laws work against these benefits.

Several people here have stated that organisations should not be required/expected to hire homosexuals, but none have stated why. Quite simply, there are no compelling arguments why any organisation, religious or otherwise, should be allowed to discriminate against individuals on the grounds of their sexuality.

Woulfe

"Several people here have stated that organisations should not be required/expected to hire homosexuals, but none have stated why."

Good point. It's probably because of our upbringing, which is some of the deranged religious stuff which has been ingrained in us. Perhaps it might take another generation for this ingrained discrimination to die off.

"Quite simply, there are no compelling arguments why any organisation, religious or otherwise, should be allowed to discriminate against individuals on the grounds of their sexuality."

Another good point. That is why some of us believe giving exemptions to organisations is one of the reasons discrimination against groups you mention continues.

Woulfe,
I do own a business. And regardless of what legislation says I choose not to service some clients. I may decline those clients by over quoting or not giving them a time frame they like but you will find many businesses who do not want a job or a client will find someway of knocking back the work. In my case I will not do work for organisations I would object too any other time - Should I do work for the Nazi party or Al Qaeda? If as you say I am forced to accept everyone who knocks on my door then I would be advancing interests of those I am opposed to.
As for sexuality, it does define a person’s values, those values may be very liberal but it does define them. It also becomes an issue for an organisation that opposes that form of sexuality. So that organisation cannot be expected to employ someone no matter how professional if the individuals’ values are opposite to the organisations. In the case of some religious organisations - Muslim and Christian they are openly opposed to homosexuality and any encouragement of it and have been so for a long time. To force such organisations to employ someone opposed to them is not reasonable to do so would be going against the commands of Allah or Christ, to such people these are commands are applicable wherever you are in the universe, they are of higher value than some law of parliament in a particular country on a particular planet.

woulfe,

I'm puzzled. Would it be possible for a school to specify that a particular job was to be filled by, say, a heterosexual married female who followed a particular religious doctrine, or not? And perhaps further specify that said female not engage in extra-marital affairs or otherwise engage in morally reprehensible conduct (as determined by the values of the institution)?

In addition, if (say) a school refused to hire someone on the grounds that they were homosexual, could not they be sued under anti-discrimination law (outside Tasmania)? If so, is that not equivalent to forcing them to hire a homosexual? Or is this my misconception?

I did not imply that the law grants 'special rights' to minorities. It does offer more opportunities for minorities to exploit the law. This is not the reason I think the laws are bad.

On your homophobia/anti-semitism analogy, I don't favour laws against anti-semitism, either. I would no more force an anti-semite to hire a jew as force a jew to hire an anti-semite. I would, however, critise the anti-semitism - and anti-discrimination laws have been used to prevent and punish such criticism, which is why we are better off without them.

||