SR specialises in being rude to other people. The more sensible posters among you should remember that 'Silence is the best response to a fool'. Don't respond to him and he will slither away.

He, and a couple of others not quite as bad as he is, are not intelligent enough to realise that the freedom of speech they oppose so strongly allows them to continue calling people 'religious nutters'

ALTRAV,

No point in arguing with Paul; he is doing double duty now that his mate Foxy has folded. Be patient. Extremism eventually takes its toll on the extremist, particularly when they don't have a audience. Think of a blowie buzzing frantically around inside an empty bottle.

Alright, now lets get serious.

Honestly on a scale of 1 to 10 Christians running around saying 'God hates Fags' rates about a 1 on the religious offense scale.

Muslims promoting clitorectomy, general subjagation of women and killing of anyone they deem an infidels is at the other end of the scale.

Christianity is most passive religion of the 3 religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

I don't support any move towards Sharia Law or an Islamic theocracy.
I don't support any move towards Noahide Law or a Jewish theocracy.

Freedom of religion and the the right to freedom from religious discrimination:
Why can't I discriminate against aspects of religion I don't agree with?

In a representative democracy we have the duty to criticise our government and replace them.
I don't see how it could ever be fair that we be denied the right to criticise other things?

This is Australia not North Korea.

Personally, I'm just going to keep on saying whatever I feel like.
Some of my topics are contentious but I don't seek to incite hatred any more then make use of my right to have an opinion.

With a Christian PM and a Zionist Treasurer it should be no surprise to whom the bill will be written to benefit.

The biggest question is why do people who have nothing to do with religion, hold in utter contempt even, worry about those religious organisations being able to refuse abortions; refuse to marry homosexuals and not employ atheists, etc?

Perhaps they are not as confident in their 'difference' as they claim to be? Do they not think that there are not oodles of non-religious organisations out there to give them what they want? If they think that religion is a load of rubbish, why do they worry about it? Christianity, at least, doesn't go looking for people to reject. Christianity is not compulsory. If these people don't believe the message they can ignore it. Anyone in this country can live life fully without coming into contact with religion.

How defined are the proposed defamation and hate laws at this stage.
Perhaps Graham will have to institute a legal examination of every post.
Might be worthwhile to find out what happens in the UK for sites such as this.
Have they had posters arrested ?
There does seem to be an offense called Islamaphobia.
It seems to be activated for any adverse reference to Islam.
There does not seem to be an offense of Christaphobia.

Perhaps Graham has already researched these matters, if so Graham are
you able to reveal it at this time ?
I can see that the legislation may require an aimed protest campaign.

Typical Steele. More misrepresentation, or just careless allegations without regard for the truth. The legislation does not allow people in the course of their employment to use religion as an excuse to abuse people. Abuse is the operative word. But it shouldn't stop someone wearing a turban to work, for example, or a cross, unless there were a safety issue. So you made all of that up.

What it should allow is for religious organisations to be able to choose who they hire on the basis of faith, or agreement to abide by faith. You got that part more or less right. But then fantasy cuts in as there is nothing in the legislation allowing for the expulsion of students because they don't meet some test of faith, although I would believe that a faith school should be able to accept based on adherence to faith. On the last I speak as a protestant who went to a Catholic school and I would have accepted their right not to accept me because of religious preference. I understand that I was a theological challenge in the class room, but I suspect they saw that as some sort of a teaching opportunity. I was never dealt with less equally than the other students.