Religions based in scientific facts are discriminated against, only a man and a woman can produce offspring in their image. Gender is set at conception by the chromosomes and all other relationships violates divine design and destroys the real person who pretends to be something else.

Foxy believes all these dysfunctional genders must not be discriminated or condemned by the Christian Church, Muslims Imams and Orthodox Rabbi Jews. It is these leaders who are in her mind promoting injustice and discrimination. Because Religion is based in belief, so is political parties. The dominant one being Marxism, whom she believes will control all minds, so as to destroy family values and religious faiths.

Try all the One Nation candidates joining the Greens Party in an attempt to change the values of the Party. Would they be discriminated against, because they hold a different belief system? They would be considered Branch stacking.

Dear Josephus,

«we must accept rainbow beliefs in our churches ans schools otherwise we are discriminating unjustly,»

It is not unjustly that if one accepts payments from the devil, then they must abide by the devil's conditions in return.

Schools that accept government money become essentially government schools, with only the slight variation that parents add a bit of extra money to allow their children to also learn their particular culture under the same roof.

Churches and schools that accept government money are in essence cultural institutions, not religious institutions.

«in and attempt to destroy the rights of parents to chose a child's upbringing and family values.»

An attempt which parents cooperate with?
They don't have a gun pointed at them, it's only a financial temptation, so who is then to blame?

«That is why the rise of children raised in two mum's or two dad's homes are now seeking their biological missing parent.»

The preference for traditional families over homosexuality, for example, is a cultural feature, not a religious one.

Every culture should be able to pass down its values to its children, but by accepting government funds, they forfeit their freedom.

«Because their true identity is missing.»

What?!?

Are you trying to say that our true identity is sexual?
Just cut off one's genitals, inject hormones, change their minds and suddenly they are someone else?

How ridiculous!

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with our identity.

Sexual orientation is something we have, something we HAVE, something we <underline>HAVE</underline>, not something we are!

The Australian Law Reform Commission provides the government
with reports outlining recommendations for law reform that
contribute to the government's objective of achieving an
equitable and accessible system of federal justice and the
harmonisation of Australian laws and practices.

The Australian Human Rights Commission has welcomed the tabling
of the recent report by the Australian Law Reform Commission on
Religious Educational Institutions and Anti-Discriminatio0n Laws.

The ALRC's recommendations would ensure that students and
teachers are protected from discrimination on the basis of
their sexuality, gender identity, or marital or relationship
status regardless of which school or educational institution
they attend.

The report also recognizes the right to freedom of religion and
that religious schools should be able to preference the
employment of people who share the same religion, where this is
reasonably necessary and proportionate to the aim of building
or maintaining a community of faith.

The Human Rights Commission urges federal government to introduce
legislation that is consistent with the recommendations in the
ALRC report. This is in keeping with international human rights
law.

Dear Foxy,

Earlier you asked us seemingly innocent "Should" questions -
"Should religious school have the right to discriminate?
Should they still get public government funding if they do?
Should gay kids be deprived of a religious education?
Should gay teachers be allowed to teach?"

To which I responded, according to what is good, right and proper.

But now, by repeating that story of the ALRC and internal government intrigues, you dropped your gloves and effectively admit that how things should be does not really interest you, that what matters for you instead, are the objectives of your government:

«The Australian Law Reform Commission provides the government
with reports outlining recommendations for law reform that
contribute to the government's objective of...»

Enough said, you want to make the politician predators happy - I don't.

Surely we can all agree
To support fairness, justice, and equality
And stop the personal attacks
To give minorities what they lack

The government is trying to do its best
To finally put prejudices to rest
It's relying on the majority to do what's right
The government on this does not want a fight

The law is clear and we need to see
That this is what simply needs to be
In a democracy we must all abide
By the law in order to do what's right.

I've been reading and laughing when I see Foxy refer to the "independent" Australian Law Reform Commission. These things are never independent and are frequently stacked. All current commissioners are Labor appointments. Three come from Victoria and one from South Australia. I know nothing about three of the commissioners, but the commissioner with most say is the President, who is justice Mordecai Bromberg, who as a judge seems to make a habit of being overturned by appellate courts over his ideologically motivated judgments. This is the Fin Review's coverage of his appointment http://www.afr.com/politics/federal/controversial-judge-to-head-law-reform-commission-20230620-p5dhy9.

If it were an independent body there is no way you would appoint as president an ideologue and former ALP candidate for election.

On the discrimination front, discrimination is lawful, it's just some discriminations that aren't. The word just means to make a clear distinction, and we all do that multiple times every day. The law makes that process illegal in certain areas involving immutable characteristics, and given the prevalence of discrimination as a necessity of life those areas ought to be strictly limited.

It would be just as absurd to require a religious organisation to hire someone who didn't support their religion as it would be to require a political party to do the same with respect to political belief.

I note some suggestion there is no right to religious freedom. In fact clause 18 of the Declaration of Human Rights states: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.