Celivia, my concerns with that comment may be about the phrasing. I hope I've addressed the safety and active harrassment side of this elsewhere. It's the excluding someone because you are not comfortable with their type of people that bothers me. Most bigots feel that they have reason to dislike or be uncomfortable with those they are prejudiced against. A gay not being comfortable with straights seems no more valid a basis for discrimination than a straight not being comfortable with gays.

The racist may have been harrased at some stage by someone of a different skin colour. I don't think those are valid reasons for excluding others who have not themselves taken part in wrong doing. A lot of straights may find open expressions of gay sexuality very distastful, something that while they accept anothers right to make their own choices thay would rather not see. Is that a valid reason for excluding gays from gatherings where hetrosexuality is the norm?

Re the female gyms, homophobic male hetrosexuals may not be too keen on sharing open urinals or working out in front of homosexual males but I'd not accept that as a reason for straight only gyms. Discriminating on the basis of gender, race sexuality etc is a slippery slope. If it's right in one instance then it's difficult to argue that it's not right in other places. It's not a cut and dried issue but judgements about what is acceptable discrimination tend to then be based on emotion rather than fact.

I don't feel like I have all the answers on this but I do think we should draw the line between preventing active harrasment and someone not just not liking what someone else is.

R0bert

Hey, what is this nonsense about gays being comfortable with straights ?

Why are there virtually no heterosexuals In the theatre or arts in general and none at the ABC, SBS either ?

Secret discrimination against heterosexual people by gays is widespread.

poetic (licence?)

<<Why are there virtually no heterosexuals In the theatre or arts in general and none at the ABC, SBS either ?>>

I don't suppose you'd care to refer us to the evidence for this astonishing generalisation?

You talk about "Secret discrimination against heterosexual people by gays". It can't be too secret if everyone in the theatre, the arts in general, the ABC and SBS is in on it.

Now after you've breached this massive secret, I suppose you'll be revealing the massive discrimination against heterosexuals in the police force, the military, the AFL and - of course - the media.

After all, it's got to be a massive media conspiracy to keep this all a secret for so long.

Hi RObert,
Good points and I understand what you’re saying about the phrasing.
I ‘m struggling with this too, I’m a little ambivalent about some situations involving anti-discrimination and exceptions etc.
My opinion about some of these arguments is therefore not set in stone but still developing.

Overall, I don’t really have a problem with private clubs or organisations excluding people, as long their private club is not funded with taxpayers’ money.
Like, if I want to organise a party at my home or hired hall I can invite whoever I like, and if people come uninvited I can ask them to leave, and if they refuse to leave I could get them removed by the police.

There have always been private clubs, like gentlemen clubs for men-only, nudist camps, women’s gym, so I don’t understand the sudden problem with opening a gay-only bar.
I think it’s ok for certain groups to want to be just amongst themselves as long as these are privately funded.

Re the public toilet- if they/re public we couldn’t exclude homosexuals. If we’d build private toilets we could give access to heterosexuals and have them pay to use them.

There are insurance companies that cater for a certain group, such as 50+. We can either accept that or call it age discrimination.
Thing is, there are still enough other insurance companies that younger people can use so they’re not disadvantaged if a 50+ insurance company is offering this policy, while the 50+ers are advantaged because they don’t have to pay high rates to cater for the young and the reckless.

I tend to look at every situation separately, to balance out which group would be more disadvantaged or advantaged by the exclusion of another group.

Continued

For example, by opening a gay bar where no heterosexuals would be welcome, who’d be more disadvantaged/advantaged?
Would the heterosexuals be advantaged MORE if the homosexuals would be refused a gay bar than the homosexuals would be disadvantaged if they were refused a gay bar?
Does this sound confusing, or do you understand what I mean?
I think that it would depend on the area to decide who would be more disadvantaged in the above situations.

If there would be many other bars open to heterosexuals in that same area, and none to gays, then heterosexuals wouldn’t be disadvantaged if they couldn’t have access to that one gay bar.
But, if the homosexuals in that area had no bar where they could be amongst themselves unthreatened by verbal or physical violence, then they would be more disadvantaged than the heterosexual crowd.
I suppose the Brethren could privately open their Brethren bar and serve holy water, with no access to homosexuals or atheists if they desire –but then forget about tax exempts!

But if anything is funded by taxpayers then it’s for the public and should be open to all.

This is probably the fairest way I can think of atm, until I come across a better solution.
It also doesn’t encourage acceptance of homosexuals by heterosexual communities if the federal government continues to deny homos the same rights as hetero’s.

Dear Team....

"the people who own those piles don't pay tax." HUH ?

how do you work that out? If a Church building is constructed with funds from donations, how in the heck is this 'tax free'?

No one that I've seen so far has actually spelt out the 'tax free' aspect..they have just asserted it.

1/ The employees all pay tax.
2/ The GST if paid is no biggy because it is claimable on input tax paid.
3/ Company Tax is not paid.. though our own fellowship is an 'Inc' body.. for reasons of protection from law suits. Technically we are an incorporated body but we don't make any money.. we just all give that it might continue.. if the truth be known, there are some generous members who give VERY generously to certain projects. But..its 'gifts'... Generally we run deficit budgets.. and the shortfall for the Pastors pay is often made up by extra individual giving.
4/ Adventure Resort.. is under the Brethren Trust.. and the reason for this, is to protect ourselves and the community from any dominant, greedy or scurrulous individual who might try to claim leadership and then..OWNership of a church property.

5/ There are many 'not for profit' secular organizations and charities are allowed to have a POLITICAL purpose as long as that political aspect is 'ancilliary' to their primary charitable purpose.

COMPANY TAX is the only tax which is not paid by Adventure Resort, and I don't see how that equates to tax payer funding?
There are no shareholders... no dividends... so..why is it a problem?
If it makes an operating "profit" when it's loans are repaid.. I suspect the money would go into:

-Improvements to facilities.
-Support of humanitarian and mission related activities overseas.

I don't see any problem.