Just read this article.

Very interesting.

Polycarp, in answer to your initial comments:

1 & 2: What you or your children or the Christian Brethren or the Exclusive Brethren think of gay people is pretty irrelevant. You do not have the right NOT to be offended. I don't much like Christians who cast the first stone, or bigots in general, but they exist and I tolerate them.

The question is whether the Christian Brethren should be allowed to turn away a group of people because of a bigotry toward them. Ultimately, VCAT will decide, but it is apparently legal for a church to discriminate.

But are they operating as a church or as a business? Do they profit from hiring out their resort? If they are going to act like any other business, then they should pay tax like any other business, and be accountable like any other business. To me, the camp website reads like it is a for-profit business.

To me, this situation begs the question: WHY ARE CHURCHES STILL TAX-EXEMPT? If churches have a charitable arm, the can corral off that part of themselves and register it as a charity, but the church itself should contribute to general taxation in this country, particularly if they are running businesses.

After all, why should I, through my taxes, support a group that is far richer than I am, and that I believe to have less scruples and a more shallow commitment to living an ethical life than I do?

3. I am confused by your point here. Can you restate it? My view is that the human rights issue is pretty simple: the Christian Brethren are free to practice their religion, but they are NOT free to override Australian law. They can publicly say, "We hate gays", but they cannot officially refuse them services that the law allows them.

Pure sophistry, Boaz.

>>THE POINT.. for Pericles benefit is that this is just another example of the ongoing vilification of Christians by the left/gay lobby in an attempt at 'revenge' for perceived historical marginalization. The distance between todays 'but the law is against them (the gays)' and tomorrows "Exemptions to the Equal opportunity act are under review" and the next days "Hate laws" such as ATTEMPTED to criminalize and incarcerate Pastor Ake Green.... is not as much as many people think.<<

Your position generally fits the description, in that one definition of sophistry is "the practice of using arguments which seem clever but are actually false and misleading"

Marked down on the "seem clever" content, I'm afraid.

And you missed out on most of the main game. Looking deeper, sophistry is actually about "subtle, superficially plausible, but actually specious or fallacious reasoning, as was sometimes used by the sophists"

Although you did get marks for the specious and fallacious content, as you would expect.

Where to start?

"just another... vilification of Christians..." etc. ad naus.

Errrr, Boaz, there's no "vilification of Christians" here.

It's a discrimination lawsuit. A legal issue. A group of people who share a common interest, being prevented from booking in at a place that is using government money - i.e. their taxes - to make profits for its owner.

On a side note, I'm willing to bet the case never sees the light of day in court. Too much at stake to let the sun shine on their nifty little business, I suspect. I smell a "settlement".

Which would be a shame.

"'revenge' for perceived historical marginalization"

Interesting that you include the word "perceived"... but "revenge", Boaz? That's simply paranoia.

And your attempt to wriggle out of the Swedish Pastor fiasco is noted, but rejected. You are, as I and others pointed out, using the same example as evidence for two totally opposite arguments.

Not clever.

None of the finer points of sophistry here, Boaz, just the false and misleading bits, alongside the specious and fallacious reasoning.

4/10. Must try harder.

cont...

4. The article does not link the Christian Brethren and the Exclusive Brethren but says they parted ways in the 80s. I think "infamous" is an fair enough description for the EB — they are famous for donating to election campaigns despite having rules against involving themselves in the political system, and they are famous for breaking up families. Famous for all the wrong reasons = infamous.

Like it or not, Polycarp, the laws of this country broadly reflect what reasonable people believe at this point in history. It's wrong to murder, it's wrong to steal, it's wrong to refuse some people what others receive simply because of their sexuality. Of course, not all reasonable people agree, and you are free to rail against this law, as you have.

Did you read the article to the end? Seventeen-year-old student Jake Quilligan's house was broken into, everything trashed and doused in accelerant, "fag" spray-painted on the wall. I'm not saying a Christian did it, although one might have, but imagine the violation, the pain, the rejection! At seventeen. On top of finding out that one group thinks you're so disgusting that they cannot bear to have you walk on their bit of earth. It's heartbreaking. It takes all my strength not to find this sentence — "the thought that I, or my children could be forced to sleep in a bed used for homosexual acts is brain exploding" — as nauseating as you find gay sex. Particularly in that it suggests you would bequeath your hatred to your child.

The Brethren's actions demonstrate how far Christianity has strayed from the actual teachings of Christ. It's a deplorable situation, and it shows Christians — or at least this lot — cannot play a meaningful role in fashioning a truly good and free and ethical society.

Polycarp, I suggest you consider reading your book again and waiting until you're sin-free yourself before letting that brain explode. Or, even better, let God do the judging.

Dear Veronika,

"Let God do the judging."

Says it all.

And, I suspect that these so called
"Christians" wouldn't know where to
look, to find Him.

The dollar signs
are blocking their vision.

Porkfeller

At the outset you put your finger on the issue:

<<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.>>

Right on, David. This tells me more about you than homosexuals.

But your concept is worth more than the 4/10 awarded by Pericles. It's so brilliant, I've adapted it.

Could you please post on OLO all the hotels/motels/guest houses/camp sites/ etc that you have slept in over the past ten years. I won't feel safe until I know which beds to avoid.

Veronika, they are probably "non profit" by the legal definitions.
The real profits are returned by way of discounted access to facilities for David and his kin, by improved facilities, aquisition of additional facilities and by providing jobs to the faithful.

David says "If you want to pay more tax for your school child to go on a camp there ..hey don't wait just work it out and send it to the goverment.".

By that logic every business that supplies services to schools (along with other customers) should be tax exempt (and possibly rates exempt). The tax exemption if it is as it appears gives them an unfair advantage in the market place over other operators who may operate on a more ethical and compassionate basis.

R0bert