Yeah right.

Just like Sydney Anglican archbishop Glenn Davies
who eloquently defended Folau's "right as a citizen
to speak of what he believes without threat to his
employment." And then he compelled 34 Anglican
headmasters and headmistresses last year to sign an open
letter demanding the laws continue to allow them to
sack gay teachers and expel gay students.

One rule for the religious schools and another for the
rest of society.

Folau is free as a footballer to vilify gays (and others)
without losing his job but were he coaching rugby at a
Sydney Anglican school and tweeting approval of gays it
might well see him shown the door.

If you're demanding rights for yourself which you won't
extend to others, that's not freedom.
It's privilege.
And intolerance.

cont'd ...

And definitely discrimination!

Dear Shadow Minister,

It will be interesting now that approval for the appeal has been granted to see where this lands.

But just to tease things out a little further, given what appears to be a preparedness to discuss this like adults, what would be your position if Mr Ngole were to upon visiting the house of a client loudly proclaim "Homosexuality is a sin and an abomination!" and cross himself three times before stepping through the door?

From the judgement;

"As the Guidance makes clear, the Appellant had an obligation not to allow his views about a person’s lifestyle to prejudice his interactions with service users by creating the impression that he would discriminate against them."

How immediate should the expression of religious freedom before you would accept that the "impression" that the client would be discriminated against be sufficient to override Mr Ngole's religious rights?

Foxy,

You continue to bring up this straw man, yet are unable to furnish a single example of a person being fired or expelled from a church school because they are gay. The legislation I would guess is to defend the schools against potential gay activists.

SR,

I am unaware of which case you claim is being appealed. All civil cases by their nature include the right to appeal which is only limited once they reach the highest court which is the high court in Aus and the house of Lords in the UK.

As for your theoretical question, loudly declaring that client being homosexual is a sinner would be highly problematic, pretty much like a gay teacher loudly advocating a gay agenda in a church school.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You state;

“I am unaware of which case you claim is being appealed. All civil cases by their nature include the right to appeal which is only limited once they reach the highest court which is the high court in Aus and the house of Lords in the UK.”

This one is. The court clearly stated they allowed the appeal. What it means in practice is that the whole thing starts again back at the original Fitness to Practise Committee just with a better set of guidelines.

You also put;

“As for your theoretical question, loudly declaring that client being homosexual is a sinner would be highly problematic, pretty much like a gay teacher loudly advocating a gay agenda in a church school.”

Leaving aside the vilification implicit in the first will greater 'religious freedom' mean Mr Ngole will now have more rights than the gay teacher to express his views? More protections to be offensive?

SM,

The following link may help clarify things for you:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-12/gay-teacher-attacks-push-for-religious-school-discrimination/10365816