The Coalition's religious discrimination bill
passes after an all-night sitting despite
some Liberal moderates defecting to help add more
extensive protections for LGBTQ students.

The bill is now to be voted on in the Senate.

Apparently this bill has caused a great deal of controversy.
I thought it would be interesting to discuss it on the
forum

What are your feelings regarding this bill?

Perhaps I had the wrong end of the stick, but I thought that religionists and their views were to be protected; but the Bill seems to be more a weapon against Christian (mainly) organisations who will be stopped from discriminating against certain minorities - i.e people acting in an Un-christian manner in their private lives and in public, but still wanting to attend - say a Christian school for example. It's one thing to accept that people can be, do or say what ever they want: entirely another to expect others to bite the bullet and accommodate them. Never has it been truer that rights for one person are lost in the name of rights for another.

People who are not Christians don't need to abide by Christian dogma; but neither should they expect to take advantage of Christian schools, Christian employers, etcetera.

I've got to admit that I'm a bit confused as far
as this bill is concerned and if anyone can explain
it in full, I'd be grateful.

People should not be discriminated against on the
basis of their faith, gender, sexuality, race,
and so on. But legislation has to be workable,
and I'm not sure who or what this legislation protects.

Does this legislation support non-discrimination against
one group without discrimination against another group?
Is it fair to every one?

I have no idea.

The idea behind this bill is both wrong and ridiculous.

Wrong - because private people and their [truly-]private organisations ought to be able to freely choose whom they associate with, for whatever reason (good, bad or none). While it is true that people ought to not discriminate against others without good reasons, so long as all they do is to refuse to associate with them and do not hurt them otherwise, that should remain a matter for their own conscience, not for the state.

Ridiculous - because no police/judge can ever tell whether a given behaviour was religious or otherwise. Suppose for example that someone is discriminated against for scratching their nose: they could well claim that scratching their nose was a religious act and indeed, under certain circumstances that could even be true! What if someone was sent home because they wore pajamas for school, could it be claimed for certain that their wearing pajamas was not a religious act? under certain circumstances it could well be!

I am glad that this law did not pass the senate.
No human law can protect religion - only God can and indeed does protect His devotees.

The legislation hasn't passed both houses and almost certainly won't before the election.

There is in this bill a rather absurd idea of protecting something
that does not exist.
I am refering to the protection of Tans people.
It is scientifically impossible for transition male to female or reverse to exist !
There is no way you can change every cell in your body from xy to xx or reverse.
So we have legislation that insists you have changed all your billions of Chromosomes. !
Why not a bill to protect the Bunyip ?