Foxy, I don't uunderstand why we have to have a law about this. The free market will always sort out these issues. Plenty of businesses will provide services for gay weddings, or Muslim weddings or Jewish weddings etc. . Those who won't provide those services will simply lose that business. I don't see a problem, unless there is only one business in town, then people would have cause to complain.
Who in their right mind would want the bad luck of ill wishes on their marriage that would come with forcing someone to provide a service against their will. To say nothing of any little extra they may put in the cake, or the deliberate mistakes in the photos or flowers.
To me it is being deliberately malicious to want to force this issue and certainly will do nothing to improve acceptance rates of the gay lifestyle

And *of course* our laws have *never* enforced certain minimum aspects of public conduct.
Get over it.
Activities on sunday were once harshly rebuked.
Just being gay was once harshly punished.

Josephus is not running out to bemoan that other laws were not supportive of minority rights to differ in the complete freedom he wishes for the religious.

Businesses *have* to accept legal tender, businesses "open to the public" and advertising to the public have to accept the public, or display their deficiencies ("whites only", etc). Once it is "made to order" or "your message here" it is no longer the proprietor's pick. If that is too oppressive, go private, by appointment and private advertising. If your prosperity depends on public access, it is not slavery to serve the public in full.

Very few religions have any unambiguous basis for refusing service to gay couples, and if they do, they can adapt their official dogma or lose all public subsidy.

They can still do what they want behind closed doors, a freedom that others have had to accept as adequate. If it is not good enough, they will have to work out what unjust laws they have imposed on others and just what *is* due.

Dear Big Nana,

We probably have enough laws as it is. However
since the YES vote quite a few Australians are
expressing their concerns about where they stand
and what they can and can't legally do and they
want to ensure that their rights are protected
by legislation. I'm sure that the Parliament
will take care of these concerns. In the meantime
the following link explains where the law curently
stands:

http://www.business.gov.au/info/plan-and-start/start-your-business/what-is-customer-service/refusing-service

Meanwhile, read up on Margaret Court.
https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/theyve-not-our-values-perth-school-replaces-tennis-legend-margaret-court-as-patron-ng-c7a7205091f6df912b3ebe8fe38bef89

Forcing people to provide a service under threat of law is certainly a good way to promote non acceptance of SSM.
I read an excellent suggestion for dealing with the problem.
If you provide a service and you have a religious or moral objection to SSM, then calmly explain that to the customer. If they continue to force the issue, explain that you will provide the service but the money received will go towards groups who support traditional marriage, after an amount has been spent on public advertising of that fact and thanking the same sex couple for their contributions to the cause.
Would be very interested to reactions to that ploy.

Court, the former great tennis player, and now days pathological homophobe, makes herself irrelevant to the argument with absurd comments about transgender children being influenced by the devil and manipulated in a way that was evident in Nazi Germany. Christ! the woman's a fool. did she get hit in the head by a tennis ball at 100 mph, rendering her senseless?