Paul1405, religion is the one thing that is sacrosanct to those who follow a particular faith or believe in God.
Because Australia abides by the convention of Christianity as it's base religion, so it is that we hold religious laws up before common laws.
Even though there are those of us who question the whole concept of religion, we must respect those who believe in it.
Because religion is entrenched in our culture and even our legal system, 'so help you God', we must give precedence to religious laws over common laws.
The 'precedents' have already been set long ago and are all around us.
To give one example; if you are of a particular religion, you don't have to wear a 'crash' helmet when riding any two wheeled vehicle.
Now if there was any law that should not give exemptions that one surely is at the top of the list.
Unlike sidelining some queers so as not to hurt their already twisted feelings, the wearing of a crash helmet IS directly affecting your physical life and not some intangible rubbish, like your feelings?
Really?
It's a stupid and moronic idea to question an immature act of emotion over a long standing, well entrenched religious belief.
And so it is that religion MUST always prevail.

ALTRAV, we are talking about the year 2018 not 1918. Religious adherence is a matter of choice, it is not an obligation. What we are all expected to do is abide by the law as determined to be so by parliament and our Constitution.

If a Catholic priest was to claim innocence of paedophilia charges based on some religious pretext, being his fervent belief that he had done nothing wrong accord to gods law. Would you accept that? Some Christian faiths accept polygamy as a mans right under religious law, should that take precedence over common law?

//we must give precedence to religious laws over common laws// no we do not, and must not. They might in Iran, but not in Australia.

Paul, I thought I made the case for religion over common law clear.
Your already beaten by the example I gave you, which is very clear and un-ambigiuous.
You completely ignored that in your attempt to deflect.
OK I'll clear up your totally petulant example for you; if a priest is guilty of playing with little boy's, where in the Bible does it say it's OK?
I should, at this point call you something demeaning for being a smart-arse, but I won't.
I will however point out that the priest should be charged under common law, but you already knew that, so why waste our time?
You are showing your petulant side by making such ridiculous comments.
Again I say you did not challenge the one example I gave which was a very clear confirmation of my point.
Paul, you MUST be prepared to 'take' if your going to 'give'.
Anyway, to re-confirm the point, religion MUST have exemptions as it is not beholding to common laws, examples of this are all around us, so to question or deny this fact is to deny that there are differences in society.

Hi Paul,

People can believe whatever they like.

However they can't do what they like if it hurts
others. That's why we have laws.

ALTRAV, I took your example as more of the religion nonsensical interpretation of scripture "Thou shalt not wear a bicycle helmet" I missed that one. Just religious clap trap not worth commenting on.

"Thou shalt not kill" now that seems rather clear and unequivocal, yet there are those Christians that justify killing on the grounds that the interpretation of "Thou shalt not kill" allows for justified killing.

I have no problem with the religious and their practices if they are of no harm to others, and are confined to within their churches. If they don't want to accept homosexuals into their faith so be it. Its when the religious want to branch out into the secular sphere like education (schooling of children) which is a responsibility of society through state involvement, then they have to accept and adhere to the laws that the state set out. The acceptance of anti discrimination laws are part of that adherence. If religions can't accept the will of society as regards discrimination in education, then they need to get out of education all together.

I must have responded to the wrong point on the wrong topic from another discussion.
I'm sorry, I thought I was responding to a question about a physical act over a religious belief.
The act of a pedophile priest, in no way compares to the act of not wearing a 'crash' helmet; because one can get an exemption, under the road traffic act, to allow him to legally not wear a helmet 'whilst in control of a vehicle that requires one to be worn', by law.
I imagine Foxy is attempting to argue that by giving exemptions to religious institutions, it will some how lead to people being offended or 'hurt'.
It is absolutely absurd that anyone would stoop so low as to expect someone to know what a strangers psychological profile is.
Foxy, you cannot be so out of touch with reality.
It's just like that maggot Lisa Wilkinson, berating all Aussie men for being rapists, and then if that wasn't bad enough she gets all 'holier than thou', by making an announcement aimed at parents and mothers of boys in particular, by stating that, 'instead of telling women to not walk in the dark alone, how about you tell your boys to stop raping women/girls'...................................................er, OK?
So, I've made my point here.
People, say what you feel or needs to be said, it just may be that what you have to say will offend or upset whoever.
That is not up to you.
Here's one I picked up along the way, and there are thousands more.
How do you tell someone who you know desperately needs to keep their job, that their fired.
OK Foxy, over to you, but anyone cam answer, it's not restricted.