Steelredux the stones aimed at you, by some who truly deserve just that, highlights right here
Here in this place, some opinions are unwanted
Paul as you see here, this bill, if drafted poorly, will be a problem more likely to harm that fix
Freedom of speech remains worth fighting for, even if some, find steelredux a bit rude.
Nothing like future miss-use of this bill will produce believe it.

SR, in response to your last comment, it's easy; they're all merely saying what THEY believe, and of course their right to say it.
As for their questioning another's right to say or question them, about anything, they also have the right to do that.
I believe these people know they are guilty of the implications of the questions and comments made to/at them, and because of that they are reminded of how they are not normal and they don't like it.
Well SR, too friggin bad, they have bullied, threatened and gone way out of their way, to force the rest of the world and even the laws, to get their own selfish way.
They know they are not what they contend to be, ie; living a lie, and this is the thing they do not want to be reminded of, it highlights the fact that they ARE different and not in a socially accepted way.
In answer to your questions/points;
The disability carer and the disabled, the answer is yes of course, it is their belief, and the disabled person can respond however they want.
AS for the guy at the local motor registry telling off a single mom for whatever he feels the need to, yes he can.
I think something is missing here as the two are unrelated.
Ah yes, the old catholic school thing again.
The funding is for the students, not the school, any moron knows this.
Anyway, if it is a particular school with a particular lean or agenda, religious or otherwise, they MUST follow their terms of reference or "mission statement" and yes if they want to reject anyone that does not follow those terms and conditions, teachers or students, then you must be missing some grey matter if you can't see the distinction.
As for this being an affront to decent Australians, it's OK, their aren't many of those anyway.
So SR, like it or not, we must be allowed to speak our minds, and let's just hear what people think and not what YOU would like them to think, OK?

.

Dear Graham,

.

In my opinion, conflicts are inevitable in the domain of individual rights and it is futile for the legislator to even attempt to anticipate them.

Australia is party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of the United Nations which we ratified in 1980.

Article 18 clearly defines the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and Article 19 equally clearly defines the right to freedom of expression.

It is impossible to imagine the circumstances of all the conflicts that may arise among these and other rights of the 25 million individuals in Australia in their vast diversity. The courts are there for that.

We should leave it at that. Tampering with our existing legislation based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can only upset the apple cart. The spirit of the law is clear. It is up to the courts to apply it as equitably as possible, given the specific circumstances of each conflict.

Need I add that I, personally, am particularly attached to the individual rights of both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

.

Dear GrahamY,

Thank you for finally addressing, at least in part, the issues raised in the video.

You say “Abuse is the operative word.” and indeed it is.

Wearing a headscarf may well trigger some people and offend them. But that really isn't what this is about.

So does it become abuse when the woman behind the counter at the motor registration branch informs every single mother that in her opinion single mother are leading sinful lives? Or the disability support worker telling each of their clients that in his opinion their disability is from the devil?

I believe it would most certainly be abusive, you seem instead to regard it as purely exercising their soon to be mandated religious freedom.

How will the legislation protect those disabled people or those single mothers from having to face overt religious judgments foisted upon them as they are going about their lives? If the disabled person seeks a different support person but the manager of the service also holds similar beliefs or says they are powerless to act without activating religious discrimination rules, what then?

Show me if you can the protections within the proposed legislation which would stop this from happening. My reading of it doesn't flag any.

The watermelon lefties hate this legislation so much, because it will halt their march through the education system.

It will stop them taking over the education in religious schools as they have taken over control of the public school sector. I know quite a few non catholic families who are sending their kids to catholic schools to;

1/ Escape the lefty/homosexual brain washing that is now standard in public schools.

2/ Have a school that actually controls bullying.

3/ A school which actually wants to help kids be the best they can be.

3/ Try to instill in kids some respect for themselves & our country.

4/ Turn out kids ready for the real world.

"I (GY) would believe that a faith school should be able to accept based on adherence to faith." Graham, and how is that adherence to faith determined for five year old's? Children are there to be indoctrinated, nothing more than that. How many children attending religious schools adhere freely to the faith in any distinguishable way more so than those attending state schools?