The Age carried a story yesterday (Sunday) about a Gay support group unhappy about their request for accomodation at a Brethren run youth camp based on their sexual orientation.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/gay-support-group-gets-straight-no-from-brethren-20080906-4b57.html

The problem with this is .. well there are many.

One.. the establishment is owned by the Brethren Trust of Australia.
This not the E.B. but the O.B. group.

Thus, it qualifies for the exemption from discrimination laws under the Equal Opportunity Act. (Which are currently being reviewed!)

PROBLEMS.

1/ Any religious group which regards certain practices as abominable, sick, disgusting, sinful must NEVER be forced to open their doors to those who practice these things. Now.. this might equally apply to a Muslim owned Camp group where the Sonship of Christ is regarded as the 'Ultimate Crime' against God. I.e.. I would understand if Christians wanting to run a 'Focus on Christ' getaway were refused the use.

2/ For me personally, (and for any serious Christian I believe), the thought that I, or my children could be forced to sleep in a bed used for homosexual acts is brain exploding.
I would regard such a situation as absolutely intolerable.

3/ HUMAN RIGHTS.. So.. again we are confronted with the problem of where one groups 'orientation' seeks to discriminate against anothers.
This of course could be argued both ways. Why should a 'Christian' group be able to discrminate against homosexuals and not the reverse?
The role of 'law' is pivotal here. If the U.N. convention on discrimination is upheld.. what about the 'U.N. Convention on Human Rights -religious freedom?

JOURNALISTIC INFAMY. The Age is guilty of the lowest level of 'scumbaggery' and sleaze by the way they have sought to connect the Open Brethren with the 'INFAMOUS EXCLUSIVE' Brethren..
Firstly the use of the word "Infamous" is slanderous...and the subsequent connection with the O.B. is scurrilous.

Any thoughts

Am I to assume that if the aforementioned thought is actually "brain exploding", and since you have already obviously had said thought....that you are now a scientologist?

These posts are a bit like that canned alphabet spaghetti - little bits of something like pasta which may have resembled something intelligible at some point, but by the time it's sitting in front of you ready to be consumed, it's a mash of limp, lost appendages floating in a gelatinous mass of unidentifiable and probably toxic slush.

would you like fries with that?

Take it like a man, Boaz.

I think that the infamous Brethren should not only be sued for homophobic discrimination, but also for misleading advertising. Their "Phillip Island Adventure Resort" is one of those dodgy businesses that avoids paying taxes because of its ownership by a religious organisation, but one certainly wouldn't know that from its name.

If they want to claim exemption from anti-discrimination laws on religious grounds, they should be forced to re-name it something like "Phillip Island Homophobic Brethren Camp", and its clientele should be restricted to those unfortunates who follow their loopy brand of Christianity. They can't have it both ways.

Interestingly, the gay support group ending up meeting at a camp run by a more reputable Christian group, the YMCA.

Porkycarp: << For me personally, (and for any serious Christian I believe), the thought that I, or my children could be forced to sleep in a bed used for homosexual acts is brain exploding. >>

I presume that Porky never stays in mainstream hotels and motels, because he'd never know if some of those evil homosexuals had stayed there before him. Besides which, don't the Brethos wash their bed linen?

As for "JOURNALISTIC INFAMY", here is what the article says that offends poor Porky so:

<< The Christian Brethren church is historically linked to the infamous Exclusive Brethren, but broke away in the mid-1800s.

The Christian Brethren is now contemplating a name change because of the "negative connotations" of the Brethren "brand". But it remains a very conservative, evangelical church. >>

This seems to be a simple and fair statement of fact, but as he has shown repeatedly here at OLO, Porky has a very poor apprehension of truth. Further, he stated recently here that he wished that the "Open" Brethren of which he is a member were more like their infamous "Exclusive" Brethren cousins.

Methinks Brother Porky doth protesteth too much.