"If as you say I am forced to accept everyone who knocks on my door ... " But I didn't say that. You claimed that if you wish to refuse to deal with someone it's "my call not the government’s." I responded that the Trade Practices Act and other laws limit whom you can choose not to deal with. Quote me by all means, but please do so accurately.

"As for sexuality, it does define a person’s values." I'm very interested to know where you found the data indicating that sexuality defines values.

"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." This view assumes that individuals with a particular but unspecified "form of sexuality" are incapable of the values associated with your hypothetical organisation.

To give a more concrete example, a young man grows up in a religious environment, attending a religious school, carrying out the required religious observances and professing the beliefs and values of that religion. As adulthood approaches, this young man realises that he is attracted to the same sex, and simultaneously his lifelong capacity to hold the values of his religion is wiped out.

I don't think so.

As I said above, sexuality tells us nothing about a person's values. Further, without proof of your claim that sexuality determines values, the notion that individuals with a particular "form of sexuality" are incapable of sharing any given set of values is absurd. Most certainly it is no basis for granting an exemption that places religious bodies above the law.

"they are of higher value than some law of parliament ... " Well, actually, no they're not. Or more precisely, religious laws may be of higher value to some individuals, but they don't entitle religious organisations to override the rights and freedoms of others, and they don’t release religious bodies from the legal and moral obligations that apply to every other organisation.

Woulfe

"religious laws may be of higher value to some individuals, but they don't entitle religious organisations to override the rights and freedoms of others, and they don’t release religious bodies from the legal and moral obligations that apply to every other organisation."

From what seems to be happening at the UN, this is all going to change, one religious group is seeking to "lawfully" put itself above the rights and freedoms of others. Namely the right to criticize it's deranged religious message. This religious group can't stand being criticised, all the while it continues to deride, criticise and restrict the message of others.

of course george pell also whines about people criticizing his deranged religious message. while, simultaneously, the pope visits africa and lies about condoms.

bassam, the UN stuff is awful and absurd. but there's plenty of preciousness and derangement to go around.

"Trav, do you have hard facts that religous organisations receiving taxpayers money, are not profit making, when they do not produce annual financial reports."

You don't need to be a rhodes scholar to figure out that churches don't fall into the category of profit making enterprises. Nor do you need to review financial statements of every single one.

"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."

I don't see why not.

Everyone dictates who they employ, don't they

Trav wrote: You don't need to be a rhodes scholar to figure out that churches don't fall into the category of profit making enterprises. Nor do you need to review financial statements of every single one.

Dear Trav,

Churches themselves are not profit making enterprises. However, they certainly can make a profit. Televangelists can rake in large amounts of money. Churches can also own enterprises who are set up to make a profit. An example is Sanitarium Foods owned by the Seventh Day Adventists.

Trav also wrote: Everyone dictates who they employ, don't they?

Dear Trav,

When an employer refuses to employ a person due to criteria such as political or religious beliefs or ethnicity which have nothing to do with their proficiency at their task they have illegally discriminated. The Catholic Church has a right to insist that a priest be a believing Catholic as that is connected with his job. They have no right to insist that their accountant be a believing Catholic as that is not connected with his job.

"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."

You should tell that to the Victorian government which is legislating to encourage 'positive' discrimination against white males.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_licence_to_despise/