Would You Support Law That Protects Religious Discrimination?

orangetrain on 04/11/2021 - 09:38
Last edited 04/11/2021 - 09:39

The three issues that will face opposition within the Liberal party room are the inclusion of a “Folau clause” that would give legal protection to someone expressing a statement of belief; conscientious objection provisions that would allow health practitioners to refuse to provide certain treatment; and the ability for religious institutions to discriminate against staff on the basis of religion to maintain a “faith-based ethos”.

But Wertheim said it was larger faiths including Christian churches which “want to preference members of their own faith in staffing” while Jewish institutions were “far too small to have that luxury”.

It looks like the Christians want the power to protect future Folaus who would like gays to die, allow doctors to refuse to treat people and would like to officially discriminate when hiring staff. The Religious Freedom bill that is being pushed through by Australian Christian Lobby and more. After all, the Hillsong supporter PM Scott Morrison, says he got the calling from god.

In case you thought that Scott Morrison and the LNP are doing nothing in government. Here it is. There's not much one can do about this. I feel bad for the people affected, including women and young girls who face a future where their doctor can refuse the morning pill just because, religion.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/religious-grou…

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2021/apr/26…

Education & Work

Comments

- - - - GrueHunter on 05/11/2021 - 19:39
        
        @Almost Banned: If there's a law that says it applies to everyone except religious people and religious organisations, that's 👏 a 👏 religion 👏 based 👏 law
        
        is it your position that we should get rid of the examples you mention?
        
        It's my position that the laws are great, and we should get rid of the religious exemptions to them.
  - pharkurnell on 04/11/2021 - 14:43
    
    owned.
    - Almost Banned on 05/11/2021 - 15:25
      
      -2
      
      I know, right? Talk about a self-own.
      They were talking about 'religion based' laws that should be removed, and they give the anti-discrimination acts as examples?
      What type of crazy bigots want the sex, race and disability discrimination acts abolished?
      - GrueHunter on 05/11/2021 - 19:40
        
        +1
        
        @Almost Banned: What kind of crazy bigots want to be exempt from those laws?
        
        You and your d*ckhead religious whackjob mates, that's who
Ughhh on 04/11/2021 - 10:10

+20

Rejecting provision of medical treatment/medication because of your own religion is basically forcing your own beliefs onto someone else = f off.

As for a position at a church or religious school, I can understand why you'd want someone within your faith. In an interview (not religious related), it's not 100% about if youre good at coding, good at cooking etc, but whether you're a good fit for the company or will fit in with the company culture. I'd imagine an atheist teacher would hate having to attend church masses.
- Almost Banned on 04/11/2021 - 12:15
  
  If I am a doctor and refuse to perform an abortion on you, how exactly am I 'forcing my own beliefs onto you'?
  - Ughhh on 04/11/2021 - 12:18
    
    +3
    
    Are you rejecting to perform the abortion because of your beliefs/religion?
    - Almost Banned on 04/11/2021 - 12:18
      
      In this scenario - sure.
      - Ughhh on 04/11/2021 - 12:22
        
        +23
        
        @Almost Banned: So your reason for rejecting is because of your beliefs/religion, not because other medical reasons. You are a doctor, you are not God, just do your job. It is not your position to apply your beliefs to another person body.
        
        A bit weird for an anti-abortionist doctor to work in an abortion clinic.
        
        Almost Banned on 04/11/2021 - 12:30
        
        +3
        
        @Ughhh: Are you seriously saying that you MUST perform a medical procedure that violates your fundamental beliefs - in this case participating in a murder - simply because someone asks for it?
        And that refusing is you forcing your beliefs onto them - rather than you having to do it being them forcing their beliefs onto you?
        Abortions do not only occur in abortion clinics.
        
        freefall101 on 04/11/2021 - 13:31
        
        +16
        
        @Almost Banned: I feel that someone who doesn't want to perform a medical procedure should probably not get into a job where they have to perform medical procedures. Much like I don't want to read from the bible to a crowd of people every sunday, so I've never become a minister.
        
        And wouldn't abortions that occur outside of abortion clinics are usually for health reasons? You can't just walk into emergency and go "get this thing out of me", but if it was an emergency I'd damn sure want to know that the doctor will do it and not go "I'm sorry, I don't believe in this procedure".
        
        Almost Banned on 04/11/2021 - 15:03 Comment score below threshold.
        
        freefall101 on 04/11/2021 - 15:28
        
        +14
        
        @Almost Banned: No, the comparison is like telling someone not to work in legal assistance if they don't want to defend child sexual abuse cases. Where do you think the lawyers come from in those cases? Do you think there's a whole bunch of lawyers that really want to defend sexual predators? No, legal aid is provided and a lawyer can't just quit because they feel icky about the case, their job is to support their client.
        
        I don't want to force them out of the medical profession either, but if they're in a situation where they need to perform an abortion and won't, that's a massive problem. They should go become a GP, a specialist, aged care doctor, whatever. But denying care when it's your position to deliver it is wrong, no matter what the beliefs at hand.
        
        Almost Banned on 04/11/2021 - 16:54
        
        @freefall101: Plenty of GPs are asked to assist in abortions all the time. This would not protect anyone who had a moral objection.
        
        sheamas88 on 04/11/2021 - 15:35
        
        +7
        
        @Almost Banned:
        
        Your comparison is like telling someone not to study law if they do not want to defend child sexual abuse cases.
        
        Funny you say that, since barristers are legally required to take any case no matter whether they find it morally objectionable. See the "cab rank rule"
        
        Almost Banned on 04/11/2021 - 16:56
        
        -3
        
        @sheamas88: I am well aware of the rule, and know that it would not stop any barrister turning down a child sex case if they wished. They would simply say that it is outside their field of practice.
        
        sheamas88 on 04/11/2021 - 17:58
        
        @Almost Banned: Do you have a source for this? I'm really interested in learning how barristers are able to get around this so easily.
        
        Bjingo on 04/11/2021 - 18:40
        
        +7
        
        @Almost Banned: I don't think anyone has asked a doctor to kill a baby, could you imagine that, popping by the doctors, handing them the baby and asking them to kill the baby.
        
        Unless you are just trying to be emotionally manipulative in which case ignore me and carry on.
        
        Almost Banned on 04/11/2021 - 18:47
        
        -5
        
        @Bjingo: Do you think it is emotionally manipulative to call a thing what it is?
        
        Bjingo on 04/11/2021 - 19:18
        
        +8
        
        @Almost Banned: Based on your response it seems rather than being manipulative you just weren't referring to a literal baby but instead the colloquial term 'baby' in reference to an embryo/fetus. I apologise for implying you were being manipulative.
        
        I assumed one of too things, either you were talking about an actual baby as in a very young child whose age falls between birth and four.
        
        Alternatively I thought you might have chosen to say baby as a means of emotional exploitation using the violent imagery of a literal baby crawling around before being killed to push your own opinion.
        
        for some reason the the third option of you using a colloquialisation did not cross my mind
        
        thanatos350 on 07/11/2021 - 11:13
        
        @freefall101: Would you want a doctor who really didn't want to perform a procedure to perform it just because they had to?
        
        I would be concerned that a doctor who morally objected, for religious reasons, might be a little distracted by that fact.
        
        In saying that, I am totally pro choice and I agree with your point regarding emergency procedures.
        
        Ughhh on 04/11/2021 - 17:29
        
        +5
        
        @Almost Banned: Did I say you must perform the procedure? I thought I just said F off.
        
        You're not required to accept the job, but must not allow your moral or religious views to deny patients access to medical care, recognising that you are free to decline to personally provide or directly participate in that care. You must provide information about how to contact or locate a medical practitioner who is reasonably believed not to have a conscientious objection or transfer care to another registered health practitioner or to a health service provider at which the termination can be performed. Your personal views should not adversely affect the care of your patient or the referrals you make.
        
        No one cares about your reason or beliefs, just do the job or pass it to another Doc who can and will.
        
        I assume if you were against performing abortions, no other medical professional would be referring a pregnant patient to you anyway. And I doubt the patient desperately only wants you to perform the procedure…
        
        Almost Banned on 04/11/2021 - 18:06
        
        -1
        
        @Ughhh: If I decline to perform the medical procedure you want, or assist you to do so by sending you to someone who will, you seem to think that equates to denying medical care.
        All it means is that I should not be compelled to perform a procedure I object to.
        I would also object to gender reassignment surgery. Would you also consider me refusing to chop of perfectly healthy sexual organs denying medical care?
        
        Ughhh on 04/11/2021 - 18:47
        
        @Almost Banned:
        
        If I decline to perform the medical procedure you want, or assist you to do so by sending you to someone who will, you seem to think that equates to denying medical care.
        
        Just to clarify, are you asking if you
        1. Decline to perform the procedure; and
        2. Decline to refer me (or whoever) to someone who will perform the procedure
        = to denying medical care?
        
        Almost Banned on 04/11/2021 - 18:51
        
        +1
        
        @Ughhh: I am responding to YOUR point.
        You said:
        
        You're not required to accept the job, but must not allow your moral or religious views to deny patients access to medical care, recognising that you are free to decline to personally provide or directly participate in that care. You must provide information about how to contact or locate a medical practitioner who is reasonably believed not to have a conscientious objection or transfer care to another registered health practitioner or to a health service provider at which the termination can be performed. Your personal views should not adversely affect the care of your patient or the referrals you make.
        
        So, in your post, refusing to do the procedure or assist the 'patient' by referring them to some who would, is denial of acces to medical care.
        I can accept that it is denial of care by you in respect of that procedure, I cannot accept it is denial of care when they are free to go elsewhere.
        
        Ughhh on 04/11/2021 - 19:01
        
        +5
        
        @Almost Banned: Heh, what you quoted (especially what you made in bold) is actually a quote from the "Good medical practice: a code of conduct for doctors in Australia". It's not my point, but rather the medical boards point.
        The other points quoted is the Law On Abortion In NSW.
        https://www.fpnsw.org.au/factsheets/individuals/abortion/law…
        https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/women/pregnancyoptions/Pages/l…
        
        On those points, you're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the law. If you were to proceed with what you want to do (above), you should be more worried about your medical license than someone elses body.
        
        Almost Banned on 05/11/2021 - 12:21
        
        @Ughhh: Well, I didn't think you made it up, so I'm not surprised that some professional organisation came up with it.
        Yes, I disagree with the Code. You happy now?
        
        Ughhh on 05/11/2021 - 13:10
        
        +1
        
        @Almost Banned:
        
        You happy now?
        
        I'm not trying to make you feel like crap or anything btw. A doctor should not hinder anyone from getting medical care, especially if its due to their own religious beliefs rather than medical reasons. Doesn't matter if its an abortion, or maybe is a drunk deadbeat bogan who you think the world is better place without, a patient is a patient and a trusted medical professional should not discriminate based on their own beliefs. Your place is not to play God or pretend to be God, your place is to provide the care they require, and if you can't, refer to someone who can.
        
        Almost Banned on 05/11/2021 - 15:32
        
        +2
        
        @Ughhh: Don't worry - I don't, but thank you for the reasoned response.
        I don't think any doctor's refusal to participate in a particular procedure or assist their patient to participate in it is a hinderance from them obtaining medical care. They are free to go elsewhere.
        To do otherwise would be to compel a doctor to act against conscience. For millenia doctors have been taught that their overriding duty is to do no harm. For many doctors, that would extend to extinguishing nascent life. They all have various ways of resolving this issue - some by believing that it is no life at all they are extinguishing, some by refusing to participate, and various stages in between.
        Doctors have also traditionally extended care regardless of the behaviour which led to the need to seek care. Doctors haven't turned away drunks or drug addicts because of their conditions, but that position seems to be changing. Certainly it is not true with transplants. Your behaviour can indeed be disqualifying. It has been deeply concerning to see so many say that anti-vaxxers should be denied care because of their position.
        As for a doctor playing God, putting aside they make life and death decisions all the time, doesn't this cut both ways? Taking a life or refusing to take a life - both involve a little god-playing.
        
        Ughhh on 05/11/2021 - 23:11
        
        @Almost Banned:
        
        hinderance from them obtaining medical care.
        
        If its against the code of conduct a doctor agrees to adhere by to obtain his/her license, that imo would be hindrance.
        
        overriding duty is to do no harm. For many doctors, that would extend to extinguishing nascent life.
        
        But have you thought about the long term and why the woman is making this choice? I don't think abortion is an easy decision to make. Is it not more cruel to force a woman to give birth to a product of rape? And then stare into the rapist offsprings eyes until of age? What's the likelihood of child abuse, neglect, depression (from the mother too)?
        
        Are the anti abortionist willing to foot the bill and provide all the care during the pregnancy and up to baby turns 18?
        
        Are you refusing so you can tell yourself you've saved a life and you'll go to heaven? Is it about your feelings more than a patients feelings and care?
        
        As for a doctor playing God, putting aside they make life and death decisions all the time
        
        How so? That sounds like a huge issue. Doctor Death is coming into mind.
        
        Almost Banned on 06/11/2021 - 12:19
        
        -2
        
        @Ughhh:
        
        If the baby is a baby - then abortion should be a difficult decision. If it is nothing but a cluster of cells, why would it be a difficult decision? It should be no more difficult that mole removal. Your own statement shows the answer.
        
        I am not forcing a woman to give birth to the product of rape - that is something the rapist did. I am simply protecting the innocent product of that heinous act.
        
        There is no need for the mother to keep the baby if she doesn't want.
        
        I am completely in favour of BOTH parents paying for the child until it is of age. That is where the burden should lie. I am happy to shift that burden entirely to the rapist in such a circumstance.
        
        No, I am saying this because I think that human life is human life and entitled to the same dignity, regardless of whether that life is incapable of caring itself because of youth, or seniority.
        
        deme on 06/11/2021 - 17:54
        
        -1
        
        @Almost Banned:
        
        If the baby is a baby
        
        Mate go Wikipedia fetus.
        
        I am completely in favour of BOTH parents paying for the child until it is of age. That is where the burden should lie. I am happy to shift that burden entirely to the rapist in such a circumstance
        
        Holy shit do you seriously see having a kid as purely a financial transaction?
        
        Something is serious wrong with you.
        
        Almost Banned on 06/11/2021 - 19:10
        
        -2
        
        @deme: No, I clearly do not see it as purely financial. At least I'm not trying to kill the baby.
        Fetus (traditionally in Australia, foetus) is a word from the Latin meaning 'offspring'. It is another word for baby - the term for a human child.
        
        Ughhh on 08/11/2021 - 09:50
        
        +1
        
        @Almost Banned:
        
        Its difficult because people like you will judge and use emotional words to tell them they're a murderer and a bad person. And they feel like they have to justify why to you when they really shouldn't have to.
        
        If the woman is being denied an abortion, then yes she's being forced to give birth to by the rapist and whoever denys/refused to assist. You think the rapist will stick around?
        
        Yes, hence abortion. Glad you agreed.
        
        And if the woman /police can't identify the rapist? So it's the woman who has to deal with the consequences? How about whoever smelt it dealts it, if you want her give birth to the baby, you pay for everything. Seems fair.
        
        There was never any consent given, to be raped, for the cells to grow into a human. Why are you denying the woman's right?
        Im honestly shocked at the lack of empathy given to the victims - the woman. I'm not sure if it's one of those things where, until you are raped and put in that position, you will never understand from the their perspective.
        
        In the end, the medical board and the law allows abortion. The laws takes into account doctors who object, but most importantly puts the patient/woman care in higher consideration. 3rd parties opinions, feelings and beliefs do not matter and have no say in the woman's body.
        
        Almost Banned on 08/11/2021 - 12:38
        
        +1
        
        @Ughhh:
        
        No one will even know if the mother doesn't tell anyone. That is not at all why it is a difficult decision. People know that they are destroying more than just a clump of cells.
        
        If I refuse you the right to kill your twelve year old, is that on me too?
        
        Abortion is not the only alternative to keeping the baby. Adoption is a viable option.
        
        See 3 above.
        
        Putting aside that rape is a tiny fraction of abortions the woman is absolutely a victim of rape. But the victim of abortion is the baby. If you want to punish someone for rape, then punish the rapist. I don't believe in punishing your children for your crimes. My empathy for the rape victim is an entirely different issue to my empathy for the baby. Only one gets to survive in your scenario - in mine, both. Who is more empathetic?
        Frankly I have no desire to have any say over the woman's body - I only want to protect the body of the baby. Our laws already require parents to care for their children. I just don't see the logical distinction between a baby inside the mother's body and one outside.
        
        Dilemma on 05/11/2021 - 09:01
        
        +2
        
        @Almost Banned: Nice use of unnecessarily emotive language.
        
        it’s not murder. Might as well call jacking off murder under your logical framework.
        
        it’s not a baby - scientifically/medically anyway. Would you call semen a baby then as well?
        
        keep your beliefs for when you have the choice of getting an abortion or not. Do your job professionally and stop being a judgemental a**hole.
        
        [Deactivated] on 05/11/2021 - 11:20
        
        @Dilemma: You people are sick!
        
        Dilemma on 05/11/2021 - 13:27
        
        +2
        
        @[Deactivated]: Cheers cobba. We are fully sick bah. Gonna go murder my sperm now 🍆 💦💦
        
        Almost Banned on 05/11/2021 - 17:16
        
        @Dilemma: If your sperm looks like this (the upper limit of legal abortion in this country): https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.whatto…
        then you might need to see a doctor.
        
        Dilemma on 05/11/2021 - 17:35
        
        +2
        
        @Almost Banned: Nice bait, but it’s not about what it looks like - and so you’ve only really furthered my point.
        
        Your whole logical viewpoint is that it is a baby - no matter what stage you are at.
        That’s the same at 0 or negative weeks 😂 (sperm) or 39 weeks.
        
        You’re calling it a baby, trying to facilitate an emotive response from a reader, when factually it’s not. And your feelings don’t really matter in how the medical and scientific fields come up with definitions. Soz not soz.
        
        Not to mention the fallacy with your total, blanket ban on abortions, without considering the context. Is it medically necessary for the safety of the pregnant woman? Why are you only looking at upper limits? What about lower, median, mean, etc.
        isn’t that what a blanket opposition to abortion would also have to include?
        
        Almost Banned on 05/11/2021 - 17:48
        
        +2
        
        @Dilemma:
        
        You can call it what you like, but its a baby. Have you ever told a pregnant woman that the thing inside her is not a baby?
        
        Context is broadly irrelevant. If the baby is a human life (and it is), it is entitled to the same dignity as any other human life. We don't kill the elderly or the comatose simply because they can't complain about it. Virtually zero abortions nowadays are required for the safety of the mother. Equally, we don't kill rapists or those who commit incest - why would we kill the innocent lives their heinous acts gave life to?
        
        Dilemma on 05/11/2021 - 17:57
        
        +1
        
        @Almost Banned: It’s not human life. Any pregnant lady can be told that what’s inside them is not a human. But is growing to be one, if they like and want. I’d be glad to have a conversation with any one pregnant or otherwise -
        
        What you call a baby is irrelevant. The medical and scientific community have decided.
        
        Killing elderly or incests or rapists is not the point and your whataboutism has been acknowledged. They are humans. The unwanted thing growing inside a women who doesn’t want it or will die having it- not so much.
        
        It’s clear you don’t have the capability to put aside emotion and discuss anything in a logical/medical manner. So you can continue to live your life with your supposed gods rules and we can live in Australia - grateful that it is secular and there is separation of religion to the state.
        
        Almost Banned on 05/11/2021 - 18:16
        
        +3
        
        @Dilemma: As i have already said, there are almost ZERO cases of abortion being necessary to save the life of the mother. Even the cases where abortion is a side-effect of caring for the mother is vanishingly small. But your strawman is noted.
        You may not think it is human life, but that doesn't make it so. It is obviously human - it is certaily not plant, animal, insect or alien, and equally obviously alive - it responds to stimuli more than any comatose adult.
        And the prohibition on the establishment of a religion or religious observance, freedom to exercise religion, and no religious test for office in s. 116 thankfully permits both the religious and the non-religious to enter the political sphere and bring their mores with them.
        
        greatlamp on 06/11/2021 - 10:09
        
        +5
        
        @Dilemma: You are imposing your view of abortion with religious like zealotry.
        
        You may be able to dehumanise a foetus and justify that is isn't 'human', or not 'alive', but don't assume the same for everyone else.
        
        A doctor doesn't need to believe in God to be uncomfortable with killing.
        
        Accepting that a womans life and choices are above that of an unborn child is not the same as accepting that a child isn't human until you can see it with your naked eye.
        
        Our culture now allows language to be softened to the point where all meaning is lost. It is no longer 'termination of an unborn child', it is now 'removing a lump of cells'. The act hasn't changed.
        
        trapper on 06/11/2021 - 12:38
        
        +2
        
        @Dilemma: It is a human child though, and it is being killed. That is the reality of the situation.
        
        Surely it's understandable that some people don't want to play a part in that? Just go to a different doctor.
        
        DrJDr on 06/11/2021 - 13:43
        
        +2
        
        @Almost Banned: So this is actually something that is covered in medical school.
        
        As a practitioner, patient's aren't able to force you to do something that you are not comfortable doing (in this case, performing an abortion), so you are correct that there is no MUST in performing a medical procedure. However, and this is very important, if what the patient is requesting is an accepted, legal medical treatment, you have a duty of care to your patient to refer them to another doctor who will perform the procedure.
        
        Taking all of that into account, refusing a perform a procedure (abortion) while also not referring the patient to another physician who will do it, IS forcing your beliefs onto the patient whilst also being against our code of ethics and conduct.
        
        Almost Banned on 06/11/2021 - 15:39
        
        @DrJDr: It may be against the code, but it is not forcing your beliefs onto anyone. It simply obliges them to find someone else.
        
        Cobber870 on 04/11/2021 - 13:06
        
        +1
        
        @Ughhh: Lots of doctors think they are a God…
        
        Ughhh on 04/11/2021 - 17:31
        
        @Cobber870: Yup, sadly. Some think they're God and play God, deciding who deserves to live and deserves their time.
      - sarahlump on 05/11/2021 - 12:11
        
        +3
        
        @Almost Banned: You have an apendix about to burst and kill you. Doctor says that's gods will and refuses to help you. you good with that?
        
        Almost Banned on 06/11/2021 - 15:39
        
        +1
        
        @sarahlump: Seems a strange answer for a doctor, but I would find another doctor.
  - geosta on 04/11/2021 - 21:41
    
    Which is fine, if you aren't the only GP in town. Which is the case in many areas of Australia.
- ozhunter on 04/11/2021 - 12:20
  
  +1
  
  Rejecting provision of medical treatment/medication because of your own religion is basically forcing your own beliefs onto someone else = f off.
  
  Why is there a problem if they don't offer it to any one else?
  
  Not like every clinic performs every procedure.
  - Ughhh on 04/11/2021 - 12:25
    
    +5
    
    What do you mean?
    
    I'm not expecting a local GP to perform an abortion lol.
    
    I remember reading a comment somewhere in the forums, that a pharmacist only agreed to give the morning after pill/contraceptive (something like that) on the condition that it wasn't to prevent a baby.
    - ozhunter on 04/11/2021 - 13:22
      
      That a pharmacy does not have to provide contraceptives(whether it's for a religious reason or not)
      
      I remember reading a comment somewhere in the forums, that a pharmacist only agreed to give the morning after pill/contraceptive (something like that) on the condition that it wasn't to prevent a baby.
      
      That's a bit weird imo, but same rule applies, if they don't want to supply contraceptives to customers, then they shouldn't be required.
      - Ughhh on 04/11/2021 - 17:36
        
        +6
        
        @ozhunter: If they don't want to supply it, then don't stock it at all and say you don't stock it. But don't try to lecture people on something that is your personal opinion/belief and not a medical advice. Don't make women feel like shit for making this decision, you (not specifically you) have no idea where the baby come from.
      - sarahlump on 05/11/2021 - 12:12
        
        +1
        
        @ozhunter: If they join the governing body to practice as a pharmacist there are certain requirements they should have to do to be ALLOWED to practice in our country. If they dont like it they can (profanity) off to Jerusalem.
        
        greatlamp on 06/11/2021 - 10:29
        
        @sarahlump: This played out at a pharmacy is rural Victoria. The pharmacist was subjected to mass scorn, and the franchise (Soul Pattinson IIRC) cancelled their contract.
        
        The pharmacy was not the only store in town, and was quite ok with losing some business to competitors down the street for their beliefs. They were trying to lecture their patients, so it wasn't a straightforward case of religious freedom.
        
        They owned the business so the internet was not able to destroy their livelihood and get them fired, and they continue to operate. Goes to show the law in this country defacto allows it
- SlavOz on 05/11/2021 - 00:42
  
  +2
  
  Rejecting provision of medical treatment/medication because of your own religion is basically forcing your own beliefs onto someone else = f off.
  
  Yeah the outrage, only the unvaccinated people should be refused medical treatment because their beliefs don't align with others.
  
  How dare Christians think they can do the same thing as the woke left circlejerk progressives.
  - Ughhh on 05/11/2021 - 02:20
    
    +5
    
    I love it when people confuse beliefs with science and facts.
  - freefall101 on 05/11/2021 - 10:44
    
    +2
    
    While I've seen the calls to deny hospital treatment to those who refuse to get vaccinated (which I think is wrong, we give everyone healthcare no matter how stupid they are), it hasn't happened at all. No point getting up in arms over some idiots on the internet making loud noises. Likewise, I don't care when Christians make loud noises about the war on their religion that already has protections out the wazoo.
    
    But this is the actual government deciding whether to push this into law. If the government was refusing treatment to anti-vaxxers it would be outrageous beyond belief. It's just as outrageous when the Christian circlejerkers are getting what they want pushed into a real world law.
- jerrus on 05/11/2021 - 11:45
  
  Forcing people to preform medical procedures on you is forcing your beliefs on them. Would you force an islamic chef to prepare bacon because you want it, if he says go find a resturant that provides that service you wouldn't demand he prepare your bacon.
  - Ughhh on 05/11/2021 - 11:55
    
    Except no one is forcing anyone to perform the medical procedures….? If a doctor has a conscientious objection against it, there are procedures/rules/laws on what can't do and what they must do to allow the patient access to care.
    - jerrus on 05/11/2021 - 12:10
      
      Do they call the abortion clinic and somehow stop the patient getting there? I'm not sure what actions pro-life doctors are taking that you object too?
      - Ughhh on 06/11/2021 - 00:28
        
        @jerrus:
        
        actions pro-life doctors are taking that you object too
        
        Some of the mentioned actions have been addressed above, supported by the medical board and laws.
    - greatlamp on 06/11/2021 - 10:32
      
      Except no one is forcing anyone to perform the medical procedures….?
      
      No, but that was the example posted above.
  - sarahlump on 05/11/2021 - 12:14
    
    When you join the governing body that ALLOWS you to practice in this country you do so under their rules. Don't like it? go be a doctor in another country that wants biggots.
    - jerrus on 05/11/2021 - 12:22
      
      Where is the biggotry? All these people are asking for is that they don't be forced to participate in (what they believe to be) ending a human life. If you fairly try to understand their point of view I think you would agree that they should be allowed not to participate. Really forcing them to participate in something that a lot of people (not the majority) have moral (its not just religious people) issues with is really the biggoted position
      - sarahlump on 05/11/2021 - 12:24
        
        @jerrus: abortion doesnt end human life, it preserves it. its a health care. There are other countries that dont believe so and I'm sure they need drs.
        
        In Australia people who can get pregnant have protections and some butthead in a lab coat shouldn't be allowed to hurt them to be politically relevant.
        
        jerrus on 05/11/2021 - 12:39
        
        +3
        
        @sarahlump: thanks for genuinely engaging with the thought experiment and not just condeming other peoples beliefs. Just for fun though the science on when your life begins is settled. When sperm meets egg and for the first time your unique DNA came into existence. You can argue about personhood or dependancey but to call a fertilised egg anything other than human life is unscientific. Please tell me what other species the fertilised egg is and when it transforms species into a human life.
        
        trapper on 06/11/2021 - 12:53
        
        +1
        
        @sarahlump:
        
        abortion doesnt end human life
        
        You know this is factually untrue, such a bizarre statement to make.
- CommuterPolluter on 07/11/2021 - 00:44
  
  +1
  
  A doctor shouldn’t be forced to perform a procedure against their religious or ethical beliefs. Being onboard with hormonal birth control, euthanasia, and abortion shouldn’t be a prerequisite to be a doctor. If they don’t want to do it, just go to a different doctor. For 99% of Australians it’s that easy to just pick a different doctor. For the other 1% it's on the clinic to vet their staff.
  - Ughhh on 07/11/2021 - 08:41
    
    +2
    
    No one said they're forced to perform the procedure…
    
    You're not required to accept the job, but must not allow your moral or religious views to deny patients access to medical care, recognising that you are free to decline to personally provide or directly participate in that care. You must provide information about how to contact or locate a medical practitioner who is reasonably believed not to have a conscientious objection or transfer care to another registered health practitioner or to a health service provider at which the termination can be performed. Your personal views should not adversely affect the care of your patient or the referrals you make.
    - CommuterPolluter on 07/11/2021 - 12:16
      
      +1
      
      Yes, a lot of people in this thread did say that.
      - Ughhh on 07/11/2021 - 14:01
        
        @CommuterPolluter: The second half paragraph is copy and paste of the code of conduct for doctors, and the NSW law, so it's more than just "saying".
        
        CommuterPolluter on 07/11/2021 - 15:52
        
        +1
        
        @Ughhh: Let me clarify: yes, a lot of people in this thread did say that performing those procedures should be a condition of being a doctor.
        
        I’m quite aware of the current guidelines and don’t have an issue with them.
    - MrSammyMcG on 07/11/2021 - 15:00
      
      You miss the point. It is your moral or religious beliefs that determine for you whether or not it constitutes medical care. If a Doctor has a belief against a procedure they are also violating themselves by performing it - which if we believe in the right of freedom of the individual; this fundamentally violates - but left wing media brainwash people into ignoring that tidbit of truth. If you don't like it just go find another doctor that will, it's unfair to strip someone of the entire right to a profession (again am individual freedom) based on 2 or 3 procedures they have every right to deny partaking in, if it spiritually implicates them in the wrong (ie that's how Christianity works).
      
      It's a shame we're so on about tolerance, until it affects you - then suddenly you can't be tolerant because you'd rather be arrogant and push a view down someone else's throat. The career position is as much an individuals right to retain as it is the patient's. If a Doctor is truly uncomfortable with a procedure they should not be forced to comply, as they are also violating themselves and they still maintain the right to fair employment.
      - Ughhh on 07/11/2021 - 15:20
        
        @MrSammyMcG:
        
        It is your moral or religious beliefs that determine for you whether or not it constitutes medical care.
        
        Lol? The whole part was for abortion related care. What other medical care would it be about?
        
        Has your moral or religious beliefs determined if covid is virus or just not enough prayers? Should I see a priest instead of a doctor if I'm getting pain somewhere?
        
        If you dont want to perform, that fine. Legally, you must provide them with information on how to locate or contact a medical practitioner who does not conscientiously object or transfer your care to such a provider.
        
        The requirement to provide information may be met by directing a woman to the Pregnancy Choices Helpline on 1800 008 463 or the Pregnancy Choices websitewhich provides information on abortion providers.
        
        The Law takes into consideration of one's morals and religious beliefs, and this law trumps over whatever moral and belief you have that does not conform with the law.
toomuchdogfur on 04/11/2021 - 10:24

ability for religious institutions to discriminate against staff on the basis of religion to maintain a “faith-based ethos”

That's the only one that makes sense. Why would you want to work for a religious institution if you're not of that religion? (though I imagine that line can get blurry at some places, like schools or a particular cafe chain)

The other two suggestions are hot garbage.

Legal protection for "statement of belief"? So no repercussions if you tell the gays to burn in hell, as long as you preface it with "as a concerned Catholic…"

Refusing to provide medical services based on beliefs? Anyone else in any other job would get fired, or at least strongly reprimanded, for refusing to do a major part of their job. You can't have it both ways - do the job you're paid for, or don't have that job.
- one man clan on 04/11/2021 - 11:34
  
  +8
  
  Because you're a teacher or a cleaner or an admin assistant or any other job and not a priest?
  - jerrus on 05/11/2021 - 11:50
    
    People send their children to religious schools to be taught by people that share or at least don't openly contradict their beliefs not so a priest will drop in once or twice a term (the average I saw when working in catholic schools)
- kanmen on 04/11/2021 - 12:14
  
  +3
  
  I think the problem of this clause is that it would allow religious institutions to discriminate against certain minority groups such as the LGBTIQ+ community and say that even if such members follow such faith they do not prescribe to the "faith-based ethos" of the school/institution by virtue of their sexuality.
  - sarahlump on 05/11/2021 - 12:17
    
    I dont see them out there campaigning against banks offering loans to christians with interest? which is a sin and forbidden to christians. ever seen them rage that christians are out here sinning by opening bank accounts? This is just a small group of biggots who have found their bigotry makes people listen to them. they're probably narcicisting personality too.
- mrjames on 05/11/2021 - 11:38
  
  +1
  
  I just got a job application rejected from a religious school due to not being christian despite emphasizing that I'm respective of other peoples beliefs. The job was IT related not teaching. The law needs to be reformed.
  - Miss B on 06/11/2021 - 11:27
    
    I was asked to work at a religious school where female staff were required to wear skirts or dresses, I declined.
- jerrus on 05/11/2021 - 11:47
  
  Right and there are no pro-life abortionist, what you are asking for is that Doctors can't say I belive that is a human life and I can't be a part of ending it. Also this is not exclusivly a religous belief there are some athiest that I know who are pro-life
- sarahlump on 05/11/2021 - 12:15
  
  there's only so many jobs out there. You take what you can get. Rarely do employees get to dictate company policy. These 'religious organisations' are companies just like any other.
- CommuterPolluter on 07/11/2021 - 00:52
  
  That wouldn’t be protected because encouraging somebody to persist in sin is not a Catholic belief. A statement of belief would be more along the lines of “I believe in one God,
  the Father almighty,
  maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
  
  I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
  
  I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
  
  I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.”
- MrSammyMcG on 07/11/2021 - 15:07
  
  Serious question, how many actual Catholics say things like that. If you are referring to their expression of their faith, I don't think anyone that truly understands the biblical texts are telling anyone to burn in hell, they are expressing that in their faith that is the consequence of your actions. I don't understand why it's acceptable to have gay pride banners in public places (ie expression of belief) but not allow another individual to express their own belief (ie that your actions constitute spiritual death and will likely result in being sent to hell). It just seems very one sided to me.
  
  It's important to make distinction between "go to hell", "I think you should go to hell", "you deserve to go to hell" (all of which would be considered probably a bit judgemental and unbiblical as it's not the believer's right to determine this but God's) and "in my faith, the Bible expresses you will to go hell". They are fundamentally different statements, I just think most left wing activists are happy to only be active around their own beliefs and are intolerant of the beliefs of others. It doesn't make sense how one part has the right to hijack common cultural icons (rainbow), use billboards and TV ads to promote their agenda, but it's deemed intolerant for an opposing party to merely present their own beliefs to the public.
trilby on 04/11/2021 - 10:26

+8

only a short step between this and teaching 'beautiful sky fairy design' instead of evolution at schools.
- sarahlump on 05/11/2021 - 12:18
  
  +1
  
  I went to a high school in the bible belt in America and they taught the sky fairy design in biology its closer than you think.
- inasero on 10/11/2021 - 09:11
  
  -1
  
  At least for me, personally, it requires a whole lot more faith to believe in evolution than it does in creation. The amount of mental acrobatics required e.g. problems with the fossil record, carbon dating etc. means that evolution still remains a tenuous theory, but lots of people today seem to have accepted it as a law
  - trilby on 10/11/2021 - 09:36
    
    +1
    
    Yes, it's much easier to believe in something which has no evidence whatsoever.
Clear on 04/11/2021 - 10:34

+1

Then I can claim everything as discrimination under my own religion. Suggesting my own religion is not a religion would be discrimination.
dizzle on 04/11/2021 - 10:38

+4

Sounds to me like they're only expecting it to work for Christians…

someone expressing a statement of belief;

Do they then allow the religeous extremists a say when they say all Christians/infidels must burn (or things to that extent)

conscientious objection provisions that would allow health practitioners to refuse to provide certain treatment;

Would they object to a Muslim doctor that refused to assist a Christian?

the ability for religious institutions to discriminate against staff on the basis of religion to maintain a “faith-based ethos”.

Isn't that what they objected to about the Falou incedent? That he was discrimated against because of his "faith based ethos"
- cashews on 05/11/2021 - 07:25
  
  I'm sure they'd come up with some reason why the same law wouldn't apply to non-Christian denominations. Similar what they've done to the atheists that run the Temple of Satan: https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/devil-i…
  - CommuterPolluter on 07/11/2021 - 00:52
    
    You just admitted that they’re atheists.
- sarahlump on 05/11/2021 - 12:19
  
  +1
  
  according to christianity christians arent allowed home loans, bank accounts, etc. but those dang gays and being happy how dare they!
weezlebub on 04/11/2021 - 10:38

+3

Should a jew be able to demand no pork at school?
Should a muslim be able to demand no alcohol at a pub?
Should a christian be able to demand no abortions at a doctor?

It's all very subjective … but should a jew be forced to eat pork? a muslim to drink? a christian to be involved in an abortion?

There is a lot of grey
- toomuchdogfur on 04/11/2021 - 10:55
  
  +5
  
  No one should be able to demand anything in those particular scenarios, as they are all asking other people to conform to their beliefs.
  
  But at the same time, no one should be forced to do something they are uncomfortable with.
  
  But if the thing they are uncomfortable with is a major part of their job which they are paid for to do, then perhaps they should do something else. Especially with doctors who, as providers of essential medical services, are heavily regulated in this country and work in tandem with government systems (Medicare) to provide said services.
  
  If a private business refused to sell pork/alcohol/whatever according to their beliefs, then that's their business and they are free to do what they please. Perhaps Christian doctors could form a private practice, prominently branding it as Christian and openly state that they don't provide birth control or abortions (so people looking for said services don't waste their time and energy there). But I don't think even that would fly in Australia if that practice had any interaction with Medicare (in which case separation of state and church may be an issue).

Would You Support Law That Protects Religious Discrimination?

Comments

New Forum Topics