Some of you might be aware of a discrimination case involving CYC at Philip Island and a gay group 'Wayout'. The gay group applied to run a camp/seminar on Homophobia and some other things. The camp managers suggested they find an alternative camp site. No application forms were ever filled in.

On the basis of that 'suggestion' a complaint was lodged and the case was settled last week.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/church-camp-found-guilty-of-discrimination-20101009-16d3f.html

PEEL STREET HOTEL. (Collingwood)

http://www.news.com.au/gay-pub-can-bar-heterosexual-drinkers/story-e6frfkp9-1111113624346

In this case, the hotel was allowed to discriminate against heterosexuals and refuse them entry.

Does anyone see the problem?

Isn't the Melbourne Club a sanctuary for gay men too? Or is it just 'men'?

Anyway, it's not so different to allowing religions to discriminate against those that they do not get along with isn't it?

Like, being allowed not to employ gay-lesbian teachers in faith schools, or a teacher who lives 'in sin' with another.

Or refusing to employ an atheist in a faith school.

There's all sorts of 'injustice' supported by the state, mate.

Did the CYC at Phillip Island apply to VCAT for an exemption (and openly advertise its intention to do so) before trying to apply a discriminatory door policy, like the bar did?

Was the intention of the CYC to make other patrons at its camp feel more secure? Did gay people regularly turn up and insult the other camp patrons?

People discriminate every time they buy goods from Coles, employ someone or ask someone home for dinner. The laws covering discrimination are often only enforced when the loud vocal minority groups want to spew out their hatred. We saw that when the 2 Danny's were charged by feminazi's as well as the case AlgoreisRich mentions. Unfortunately the average Aussie won't really be to bothered until they are personally affected. We live in interesting times when evil is called good and good evil. You have clearly shown that Algore in your exposure of the everyday hypocrisy of secularist.

Quite right runner, "evil is called good and good evil".

It's time for the evil of evangelical religion, and the Vatican, to be called for what it is... an evil.

Yet another Troll type topic from Al, designed purely to bait people. Why is he allowed to do it?

Rudy...this is not a troll topic....it is of serious concern.
You want to know just HOW serious? see this link please.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/apr/01/religion.gayrights
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577982/Bishop-fined-in-gay-discrimination-case.html

You need to look very closely at how the law was used/interpreted in this case as it is the same law we have here.(Vic)

I'm interested in how we can have a LAW which is crystal clear... and a magistrate then afford protection of an exemption from that law for one group..but not another.

That IS 'discrimination'.

Bugsy.. I don't believe it is neccessary for any organization to apply for an exemption when the exemption is already included in the law.
The judge viewed CYC as a 'business' even though it is owned by the Brethren Trust, which is a Church trusteeship.

I believe this is an error in law, and just like the 2 Dannies case, should be appealed.

The exemptions to the Equal Opportunity Act are there to protect both gay clubs and Churches from being forced to accept people who are diametrically opposed to their foundation principles.

You might note the POLITICAL parties are also protected..and can shove out the door any applicant of the wrong political flavor to be 'receptionist'

So.. it comes back to the LAW. Why should Christians NOT be protected by that law but Gays are?

This is just one further example of the deliberate marginalization of Christians by secular/progressive (regressive) interests.

I disagree, it is very much a topic designed to bait. I notice a lot of your topics are worded in similar ways. Anyway, I'll leave you to it. I certainly won't be taking you seriously. If anyone wants to get baited, that's their choice.

Truly it has been said: Those who respect the law and like sausages should watch neither being made.

Rudy...this is not a troll topic....it is of serious concern.
You want to know just HOW serious? see this link please.

Yeah! Serious about discriminating against GAY people. AL At least gays are real.

If my sister every comes across you with that out look, you just might talking funny for a few weeks your self mate. smile.

I'll just let you know, that she can kick-start her vibrator, roll her own tampon, and she can suck the chrome off a tow-bar!

You want to be careful where you poke your god stick mate! coz she/or he and her many many many friends might just find a new place for it.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CC0QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motorcycletourers.org.au%2Flinks.php&rct=j&q=Lesbian%20bikers%20pictures&ei=GPa7TL79AoquvgPRvJnmDQ&usg=AFQjCNFjDkCqHQD62zqXEnVIBVoDLaiaVA&cad=rja

Just joking AL.

There very nice people, just like you.

Tolerance for all I say.

SMILE>

TT

""" Yet another Troll type topic from Al, designed purely to bait people. """

Spoken like a true troll.

""" Why is he allowed to do it? """

It's pretty simple really, it's called free speech. It's really good for you did you know?

Yes ALGOREisAtrOlL, it would seem you must think what is moral and then reverse it to avoid being in the right, err... or was the wrong :)

Two entirely different cases with determinations arrived at for two different reasons.

One is done to prevent the abuse of homosexual men in a social setting.

One is discriminating on the basis of sexuality without any corresponding risk to others by using the facilities.

Christian schools are still able to discriminate in regard to teaching staff often advertising "must be a committed Christian" etc. Women and men have single gender clubs and mentor groups specifically aimed at women, girls, boys or men.

Not all perceived discrimination is done for 'discriminatory' purposes. Discrimination that actively seeks to label a person in a derogatory way for being gay, black, ethnic or religious and denying them access to facilities available to any other group, is different to protecting from abuse or violent reprisals by neanderthals.

Why the organisers of the camp actively chose the CB camp facilities ('scuse the pun) I can't fathom. Why give your hard earned money away to foster a group who are intent on victimising gay people?

Great post ALGOREisRICH, keep them coming. You're doing what Christian leaders and the media have failed to do for the last 50 years - and that's to highlight the tyrannical instincts of the left.

For starters, Christianity has been expressing hate, disgust and discrimination toward homo's for donkey's years. This little incident involving the booking denial is discriminating against a suicide prevention group for young gays. Obviously not young PEOPLE but young GAYS. It's disgusting.

The pub is creating a comfortable environment for GAY MEN to socialise among other gay men, without threat of abuse or violence (which the pub has a history of toward gays). The headline of "Gay pub can bar heterosexual drinkers" is misleading because the info given in the article suggests that lesbians aren't welcome either.

So really it isn't discrimination against heterosexuals, but other homosexuals too?
To me that suggests gays aren't discriminating against straight people, but they want an attack free environment from ALL to socialise with each other.

How dare they.

It is like having a lez bar where only other lesbians are allowed entry. Is that ok because they are women or would that be equally discriminatory.
Or for instance a church denying employment to gays...

All I see is someone pointing and screaming DISCRIMINATION! when gays have been subject to it their whole lives.

Nicnoto, you're using sane logic. It'll get you nowhere here. The radical right wing Christian fundamentalists on this site don't know the meaning of the word "logic".

Pelly
you have simply swallowed the 'gay propoganda' version of events.

I've been to a gay club in Kings Cross in my single days (led by one of our married blokes in the Air Force who wanted to 'show us single bods a thing or two' about life..and there was not the slightest hint of "oh..ooh..the hetero's are picking on us" (He didn't TELL us it was a gay bar iether the rascal)

I've rarely been so intimidated in my life... as a hetero. My bum was pinched.. legs rubbed... that was just walking to a table!

I also have experienced a gay assault on my own son.. propositioned in my presence by a very confident homo with all the sleaze and debauched attitude you can imagine.

So.. your point about '2 different reasons' is not valid, because the law does not take 'reasons' into consideration..oops..wait.. when it comes to the RRT it's only when CHRISTIANS are involved that it doesn't....sorry bout that.

The Law does not look at reasons...but outcomes.

Section 9 of the RRT (which includes sexual orientation)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rarta2001265/s9.html

(1) In determining whether a person has contravened section 7 or 8, the person's motive in engaging in any conduct is irrelevant.

Any comment ?

So.. the gay bleet "We are becoming a zoo" for the Peel st hotel is moot. They are DISCRIMINATING on the grounds of sexual orientation, plain and simple.

Now don't the religious people just love to use their logic.

Great post ALGOREisRICH, keep them coming. You're doing what Christian leaders and the media have failed to do for the last 50 years - and that's to highlight the tyrannical instincts of the left.
Posted by TRUTHNOW78, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 8:03:59 AM

The right wing self-righteous fruit basket showing us all, of how they lied for thousand of years to make an easy living off the gullible.

This by the way, comes strait from the god people themselves.

"I've been to a gay club in Kings Cross in my single days" AL what the hell where you doing there in the first place. Time for some to come out of the closet I thinks.

"I've rarely been so intimidated in my life... as a hetero. My bum was pinched.. legs rubbed... that was just walking to a table!

Again! Why would a so-called good person be in that environment in the first place?

Al for starters, that would be assault. Why did you not take action?

or are you just one hot good looking guy?

AL! humans evolve my son and if change drives one to point out something that you just don't like, well fair is fair mate! Just cop it sweet.

Gays are very fussy Al, but I cant get my head around you being in a gay bar.

Can you tell me what and why you were there please?

TTM>

Al just to qualify my sentiments regarding homosexuality, I believe bi sexuality is a choice whereas homosexuality is not. So the part time fag has chosen the hedonistic pleasure both psychological and physical of a homosexual interlude, but the full time fags are following their hard wiring and to deviate slays them psychologically and detests them physically, they just can't do it. Given my thinking on the subject and the fact that I was born in Paddington Women’s hospital and resided a few hundred meters from Taylor Square from day one until my early twenties you might say that I am steeped in gayness, but not gay.

I had to laugh out loud when I read that it was a Brethren owned camp site. I tend to think that the outcome has been perfect for the Way Out mob, five grand and exposure. Re the Brethren, the legal argument that their beliefs and prejudices should not come into play when they run a company that provides a service for the public is valid and lost them the case. If I am excluded entry on the grounds of sexuality in a gay establishment, I too could litigate and win against the proprietor, I honestly do not see your beef.

I make my living from hydrology, and so I have gone bush throughout my entire career, and not too long ago I was dealing with Brethren folk for a couple of years on and off. On one occasion after travelling for a couple of hundred klms through the scrub with a Brethren client I suggested that we get a meal in town together before I flew out. He said blankly to me "I can't eat with you as you are not Brethren". I just looked at this imbecile and said "not a problem I understand", Al what I understood was that Jesus sat and ate with 5000 souls and this dipstick from the womb rejects me on cultist dogma.

"I've rarely been so intimidated in my life... as a hetero. My bum was pinched.. legs rubbed... that was just walking to a table!"

Wow...I guess now you know what it feels like for some women.

Gay men can be aggressive in their advances as much as straight men. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation but personality and/or lack of respect.
To generalize all gays being this way is ignorant..but whatever helps justify discrimination.

TTM... I explained why I was there mate... I was about 19 freshly out in the big wide world of my first Air Force Posting and in my section there was this married bloke who decided to 'show us the world' in Kings Cross. We thought that would be a bit of a lark :) so ..off we all trotted.

I had enough sense to STAY AWAKE during our return trip at about 2.00am in his Morris Cooper S and lucky I did because he went to sleep at the wheel about 3 times ! ! !

NIC... I don't think generally heterosexuals are 'that' aggressive are they?
-any women wish to comment?

NIC...you are actually demonstrating the sad secular blinkers in that you only recognize discrimination for gays..as if they are the only ones discriminated against or vilified.
Ever seen the Gay mardi Gras in sydney where Fred Nile and Catholic Nuns are portrayed 'less than positively' ?

I think some of you live in a kind of social 'maze' where you never get to see what happens to Christians.

"NIC... I don't think generally heterosexuals are 'that' aggressive are they?
-any women wish to comment"

I worked in a bar for 2 years, being 18 and happy seems to mean that obviously I was ready for the picking. So yes, hetero men are equally aggressive when they are looking for action.
Don't get be wrong, this wasn't an everyday occurrence but neither is that behavior in gay bars.

"NIC...you are actually demonstrating the sad secular blinkers in that you only recognize discrimination for gays..as if they are the only ones discriminated against or vilified."

Would a catholic church allow jewish prayer...or is the church for catholic people.

I am not denying that Christians don't have it tough sometimes, but in this instance, I call bullsh@it on the discrimination claim.

The following was part of my first post in this thread, I urge you to read it.

"The pub is creating a comfortable environment for GAY MEN to socialise among other gay men, without threat of abuse or violence (which the pub has a history of toward gays). The headline of "Gay pub can bar heterosexual drinkers" is misleading because the info given in the article suggests that lesbians aren't welcome either.

So really it isn't discrimination against heterosexuals, but other homosexuals too?
To me that suggests gays aren't discriminating against straight people, but they want an attack free environment from ALL to socialise with each other.

How dare they.

It is like having a lez bar where only other lesbians are allowed entry. Is that ok because they are women or would that be equally discriminatory.
Or for instance a church denying employment to gays.."

Dear Nic
I think I should share with you one of the reasons for my concern.

Please have a look at this link

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/47000-fine-for-bishop-sued-by-homosexual-youth-worker/

If you doubt how incompatible the idea of a 'gay' youth worker is for a Church (an evangelical one at least) you would do well to read Pauls words in Romans 1 (seriously..if u've never read them.. please for your own information do so this time)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1&version=NIV

Verses 18-32

It would be possible to draw a superficial conclusion from those verses that "Christians believe gays should be killed"..however, if that is the impression you get from those verses, please allow me to provide some further commentary on the meaning in the bigger context.
If you don't find that kind of meaning there...then alls good :)

Gays and Socialists (many of whom are gay anyway) seem to find the law to be a very convenient battering ram or chunk of 2x4 with which to 'bash' Churches. The problem is, the 'law' means one thing to a conservative (objective) magistrate and another to a progressive 'activist' judge. Hence the growing problem for us.

An objective magistrate will take the law as it stands and apply it equally to all. The 'progressive' magistrate will come up with some kind of amazing convoluted reason why white is in fact black.

Here is one such example. (page 7)

http://www.acrawsa.org.au/ejournalFiles/Volume%204,%20Number%202,%202008/O%27Connell%20Pinned%20Like%20a%20Butterfly%20FINAL.pdf

"I've rarely been so intimidated in my life... as a hetero. My bum was pinched.. legs rubbed... that was just walking to a table!"

Al, welcome to the world of women. :)

Errr... sorry, Boaz, could you run that past me again?

>>It would be possible to draw a superficial conclusion from those verses that "Christians believe gays should be killed"<<

The verses in question being, I take it...

"They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Please, which part of this is metaphorical, and which should be taken literally? It seems particularly prescriptive to me.

But what do I know?

"...God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death"

>>An objective magistrate will take the law as it stands and apply it equally to all.<<

So, your "objective" magistrate would look at the godly instruction you have pointed us to, and said... exactly what?

Objectively speaking, that is.

Have I mentioned before, Boaz, that I consider your selection of verses from the various religions' scriptures to be highly... convenient, shall we say?

Not to mention blindly self-serving.

I think I may have.

Once or twice.

Dear Pericles...'thankyou' for biting and taking the juicy bait :)

The posture I provided was quite deliberate in seeking to evoke just the response you gave.

The reason for this is key to understanding the difference between Christian doctrine and practice from a certain 'other' faith.

It all hinges on one major idea.

DOES divine retribution occurr in THIS life...or the next?
In direct connection with that basic idea is this:

"Are Christians called upon by the Bible to visit the divine punishments on unbelievers in THIS....life?"

Now..It's Bible study time for you and I..and here we go.

1/ Doctrinal/Biblical foundation.
a) Romans indeed specifies that those who distort the grace and law of God deserve death. It does not however encourage Christians to be the instruments of such punishment. I defy anyone to find a verse in Romans which would suggest this. In fact P, you could just 'go the extra chapter' and read the beginning of ch 2 (remember the 'chapters' are not inspired and the thought continues in the next chapter) Have a peek please.

2/ From the same author..Paul..we find this:

II Thessalonians 1:8

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+1&version=NIV

//He (God) will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power 10on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.//

You might feel a tad uncomfortable with those words, considering that sadly... at this stage at least, they (the punishment bits)mean 'you'. But the key questions are

'when' will this punishment occur? Answer.."when he comes"
'who' will carry it out? Answer.."God"

You might do well to read Matthew 24 in this connection too.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24&version=NIV

Before you cry 'unfair'... please read this:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+9&version=NIV

V14 to end.

Boaz, you are an absolute hoot.

>>The posture I provided was quite deliberate in seeking to evoke just the response you gave<<

Of course it was, Boaz. Of course it was.

So, what delights have you in store for me... let's take a look.

>>It all hinges on one major idea. DOES divine retribution occurr in THIS life...or the next?<<

Oh.

So when we read "God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death", this punishment is taking place... in the next life?

How does that work?

Oh, wait a moment, here comes the good bit.

>>Romans indeed specifies that those who distort the grace and law of God deserve death. It does not however encourage Christians to be the instruments of such punishment.<<

Oka-a-a-y.

So Romans tells us that God prescribes a punishment, but that He then delegates the implementation of the death penalty to a third party?

A somewhat distasteful - some might even say cowardly - form of outsourcing, wouldn't you agree?

What else have we?

>>"He (God) will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus"... 'when' will this punishment occur? Answer.."when he comes" 'who' will carry it out? Answer.."God"<<

But haven't we already ascertained that these folk have already been murdered, through God's delegated authority to a terrestrial agency?

And it's clear that the only punishment He has in mind at this point is a form of exclusion... "shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power". Big deal. You're already dead at that point, remember?

Look Boaz, I don't particularly want to make fun of your belief system. But you do say the most ridiculously provocative things under its banner, which to an outsider looks remarkably like throwing massive rocks while living in a transparently fragile glass house.

You stop your blatant whack-a-mozzie antics, and I'll keep schtum about those comical inconsistencies in your particular version of your own chosen religion.

Sharia law advocates that homosexuals be thrown off a cliff
and if they survive they should then be hanged.
http://gayswithoutborders.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/iran-two-young-men-to-be-thrown-off-cliff/

Whereas Christianity merely advocates that homosexuals be shunned from society and made to feel that they are abnormal abominations until they choose to throw themselves off a cliff or hang themselves.

Unless they join the clergy that is.

CYC stands for "Christian Youth Camps", and that is the purpose of the camp site. The Staff are trained in youth activities and cater especially for the development of Christian Youth. A gay or lesbian conference does not conform to that criterion, and there are dozens of conference centres that do allow conferences with any purpose.

The militant Gay community deliberately confront Church institutions in an attempt to take legal action. Their agenda in this area is not new. Sincere persons are not involved in confrontations.

Dear Pericles

You:
//So Romans tells us that God prescribes a punishment, but that He then delegates the implementation of the death penalty to a third party?//

Not a 3rd party....He Himself... at the time of Christs return.

That was the primary point I was seeking to make.

I realized though that in many of my posts I've pointed out divine retribution in this life, in the old testament, and I suspect we are not immune to some providential chastizing in this age too..but it isn't spelled out so not much point in speculating on that.

Christ 'came' as Savior...he WILL come again..as Judge.

"He" will take care of unrepentant homosexuals and adulterers equally.
Divine Justice is not gender specific.

BUGSY'S point...

//Whereas Christianity merely advocates that homosexuals be shunned from society and made to feel that they are abnormal abominations until they choose to throw themselves off a cliff or hang themselves.//

It's not about 'BEing' but DOing.

Notice the extent of the following. (not limited to homosexuals)

29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Bugsy (Pericles)..do you fit into any of those ?

As for me..I can pick a few which would fit me in my carnal moments. Fortunately we have the ministry of the Holy Spirit to remind us when we stray..that's the process of sanctification. One that does NOT include or relate to me is this one "but also approve of those who practice them"

That seems to be a little inconsistent, Boaz.

>>Not a 3rd party....He Himself [implements the death penalty]... at the time of Christs return.<<

Quick recap.

>>Romans indeed specifies that those who distort the grace and law of God deserve death. It does not however encourage Christians to be the instruments of such punishment.<<

What is now completely unclear is your definition of death.

As in:

"... those who do such things deserve death"

To most sentient beings, death is that which comes at the end of life.

So do tell, Boaz. When does "death" occur, in your scheme of things?

It would seem to me that the only defence you have is that the verses in Romans are mistranslated, or misunderstood, or metaphorical or whatever. Otherwise, we would have a sequence where a) someone's life is forfeit, thanks to their transgressions, b) someone kills them, as decreed by the Bible c) God comes along later and says "now I can kill you. Oh. Someone already has".

Logic doesn't really form part of your life, does it Boaz.

>>Bugsy (Pericles)..do you fit into any of those ?As for me..I can pick a few which would fit me in my carnal moments. Fortunately we have the ministry of the Holy Spirit to remind us when we stray..that's the process of sanctification.<<

Yep, I'm prone to a bit of backsliding from my ethical standards occasionally myself. Fortunately I have a conscience that reminds me when I stray. That's when I apologize, and promise myself I will do better. It seems to work.

But it was your preface to the list of iniquities that caught my attention.

>>Notice the extent of the following. (not limited to homosexuals)<<

Tell us, Boaz, into which of those categories that are mentioned does homosexuality fit?

"wickedness, evil, greed and depravity... envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.. gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful... senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless"

Or is it one of "God's righteous decrees"?

Which one, exactly?