Bravo Foxy!

But I'll bet it won't make a scrap of difference to the insensitive BOAZ.

Polycarp,
You said: “.. been married to one women for 29 yrs :)”
Hmmm. If I were mistaken I’d apologise but I find it difficult to believe that you, as a fundy, got married for the 1st time at 30.
Fundies generally marry very young- they’re either desperate to have sex without sinning or as a result of an unplanned pregnancy or to hide their homosexuality.
For the latter I have deep sympathy, as well as for their partners.
These homosexuals are a result of many years of brainwashing by their homophobic, fundy parents.
I sincerely hope that none of you homophobes is home schooling/has home schooled their children.

“The fact is... homosexual behavior is sinful.. just like adultery (including the mental kind) and theft (even the mental kind) and Murder (including the mental kind) “

And

“The difference is.. these days people wear the 'gay' badge openly..not many of us wear one which says "I want to kill [fill in the name]"”
It’s absurd that you believe that your belief that homosexual behaviour is sinful is ‘a fact’.
Once more, homosexuality and murder are named in one breath.
Why are homosexuals as ‘sinful’ as murderers?
A homosexual commits no crime; a murderer does. Homosexuals are merely attracted to a person of the same sex, desire consensual sex or a relationship with another so they can both feel happy no different emotionally than people enjoying heterosexual sex or relationships.

Is bigotry a sin, too?

Pericles,
“…somehow I'm addicted to it where Boaz is concerned.”
I hope that Polycarp is giving you your fix!

“All religious organisations that satisfy the legal definition of religion in Australia are tax-exempt. The Australian Taxation Office makes these determinations when organisations apply. The definition of religion in Australia was decided in the 1983 High Court Scientology case, in which the court defined religion as any belief in a supernatural being, thing or principle and canons of conduct that give effect to that belief. An organisation must have a building, be paying a stipend to a minister with a congregation, perform rituals and be open to the public.

Second, in Australia, under our charity law the dominant purpose of a religious organisation's activities must be the "advancement of religion". It does not matter if the religious organisation is running a commercial business, so long as the dominant purpose of the activity is religious.”

“Second, in Australia, under our charity law the dominant purpose of a religious organisation's activities must be the "advancement of religion". It does not matter if the religious organisation is running a commercial business, so long as the dominant purpose of the activity is religious.
This opens the door for any religious organisation to tithe its members, parlay the donations into a considerable sum, then invest it in a commercial business or investment whose profits will be tax-exempt. All things being equal, with tax-exempt status, a business can grow quickly. There is no requirement for any of these profits to be applied to the relief of poverty or any of the many other charitable causes because the advancement of religion, that 17th-century idea, is deemed to be charitable in itself. It does not matter what kind of religion it is, so long as it has a supernatural belief. ”

Read the whole article here:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24144988-7583,00.htm

Ohhhh .......myyyy........... goodness.. this is too precious.

OPEN BRETHREN DISCIMINATE AGAINST GAYS! -CHALLENGED BY GAYS AT VCAT (shock horror)
All those who want the poor old bretho's to submit to the discrimination law and accept GAY campers.... (as a gay group that is) and are trying to rip us to shreds for our position that we must be allowed to discriminate against “groups” which are clearly promoting values which we find abhorrent based on our genuine religious beliefs; might find the following errr at least a bit challenging..

GAYS GRANTED RIGHT BY VCAT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST STRAIGHT AND FEMALES”

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/straightout-ban-at-gay-venues-sparks-uproar/2007/05/28/1180205160437.html

VCAT judgement.

“If heterosexual men and women and lesbians come to the venue in large groups, then their numbers may be enough to “swamp” the numbers of gay male patrons. This would undermine or destroy the atmosphere which the company wishes to create.”

COMMENT

Well..how many times have I argued exactly that? Uncontrolled migration, Weapons at school, Islamic prayers LOUD in RMIT on State land, Islamic calls to prayer on PA systems. .. etc.

I just can't wait....to see the mental gymnastics our 'cutting crew' of Brethrenophobes will goto to get out of this one :)

If it shows nothing else.. it shows the utter stupidity of trying to impose 'non discrimination' on a society which values the freedom of association and the right to choose who, when and where it mixes with or accomodates....for reasons of “maintaining the atmosphere it wishes to create”

Now..this also applies on the social level and the national level. If a small group withIN a society is recognized as having a right to establish an 'atmosphere' of its liking..then surely this same principle must apply to a democratic society as a whole?

Personally, I draw the line at issues of 'race'..and reject the idea that 'skin color' is a legitimate aspect of 'atmosphere' which should, in my view, be about 'moral values' rather than race or color.

It's nice when VCAT is on our side (and the side of reason and common sense) for a change.

Excellent points, Celivia which I’d like to expand on, as follows:

The Australian constitution clearly defines us as a secular society: Section 116 provides that "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion or for imposing any religious observation …"
Yet the spirit of that section is breached by the Commonwealth Government and all state governments in many tax provisions. Many religious organisations run commercial activities – at our (the taxpayers) expense. And now the same profitable concerns can discriminate against taxpayers who wish to utilise the services offered.

And Polly asks when discrimination laws discriminate?

Well, for example, why should non-believers be made to pay for the churches of believers. Or how about the taxes paid by working Christians be used for the benefit of, oh, say, Muslims? Or Jews? Or Scientologists?

Yes, many cults such as Scientology have surprisingly received official recognition as "religions".

This question of whether scientology is a religion was considered by the High Court of Australia more than 20 years ago in Church of the New Faith versus Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Vict.) 1983 154 CLR 120. To the astonishment of many observers, the court held that it was a genuine religion.

Religious bodies benefit from tax concessions at all levels of government and yet they can discriminate against Australians simply because of their sexual orientation.

Maybe gays and lesbians should declare themselves to be a religion and take advantage of the Religion Rort.

I’d like to see that.

It can’t be that difficult to separate commercial operations from the charities run by religions. Look at the Seventh-day Adventist Church, it runs the Sanitarium Health Food Company, which makes many popular food products. I guess it doesn’t matter if homosexuals purchase breakfast food.

Once again Polly has been crying “wolf” and once again he is shown to be a most biased little Christian.

David, interesting link. I do think that the issues are very different. If the pub was regularly hired out for all sorts of groups and a group was excluded speciafically because they were hetrosexual then it would relate.

What they are addressing here is more like having a bunch of "brethophobes" turn up during one of your rituals inside your hall and making their views of your faith clear to all involved. I'd support your right to include or exclude who you like from your worship services (as long as they are not threatened for not being part of your faith).

I did find the following comment disturbing
"There are a lot of gay people that are uncomfortable in a mixed environment, and that is just something that people forget,"

I left to wonder if the feelings of straight people uncomfortable in a mixed environment should be given the same concern at other venues.

If it's OK to be uncomfortable about straight sexuality and that discomfort needing to be catered to then is it OK for racists to want to exclude someone because they are uncomfortable with mixed race gatherings. The list goes on.

R0bert