Is Mise,

Rather weak arguments old chap.

When you choose to work is up to you and your employer
to work out - there's no law that says when you have
to work.

As for laws regarding the Indigenous People?
Courts deal with these matters on a case by case bases -
not all courts comply - and our laws are generally ones
that do take precedence. Hence the large percentages of
Indigenous People that are incarcerated in our jails,
commit suicide or are mistreated.

ALTRAV,

We shall have to wait and see what the current government
decides to do regarding lifting the ban for religious
schools to be able to expel gay students and sack gay
teachers. We have different opinions on this issue -
however it will ultimately be a decision that will be made
in Parliament. That is the way the governing of our civil
society works.

Dear Foxy,

«People in this country are free to follow whatever religion they want as long as their beliefs do not hurt others or break our laws.»

As I already pointed out, "free to follow X as long as Y" equals "NOT FREE to follow X".

Nevertheless, your point about not hurting others is moot because following religion cannot hurt others.

(yes, I expect many to jump in and provide "counter-examples", but I contend that whatever they may come up with, though it might superficially look religious, can be proven not to be truly religious)

«When we hide discrimination under the guise of 'religious freedom' we make a mockery of human rights.»

Discrimination is a wonderful and essential capacity. Humans are able to discriminate between good and evil, but even amoebas can discriminate to some extent - they could not survive otherwise!

But I presume that the correct word you actually meant, was 'prejudice'.

Well, prejudice is not a religious thing to do, nor am I aware of any religious people who want to prejudice against others on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Yes, I believe that such fools (whether they call themselves "religious" or otherwise) who want to prejudice that way must not be prohibited by law, yet it would be reasonable to stop funding them with tax-payer money.

---

Dear ALTRAV,

«but the church does. And it does it impeccably.»

I beg to differ. We have too many historical examples when churches have taught irreligion as "religion". What more, churches differ too much in their views, including between different dioceses within the same denomination.

«Then thankfully the matter is handed onto the religious experts for clarity»

Nothing less than a prophet would qualify and sadly, we don't have that many of them living today.

Foxy,

Freedom of religious expression is a fundamental human right within limits. The legislation being discussed is not primarily aimed at discriminating against gay students or teachers, rather allowing religious institutions to govern according to their teachings, and to ensure that teachers and students adhere to their code of conduct.

The extreme version could extend to firing unruly gay activist teachers or students, but considering that I can't find a single incident of this occurring in Aus, this looks more like a straw man than a real concern.

A very real risk to these institutions is that they will become targets for activists who will try and undermine them and be impossible to discipline if these protections are removed.

One only has to remember the referral of the Tasmanian Catholic Church to the AHRC for discussing their point of view on SSM.

Shadow Minister,

Religion should be kept out of public policies -
separation of church and state.

Foxy,

I agree, the state should keep its nose out of the affairs of the private religious schools.

Shadow Minister,

Religion as we know exists all around us.
People are free to practice their faith as long as
the faith does not hurt others. Also their
faith has no bearing on government policies.