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

jojo13 on 05/11/2021 - 07:10

Definitely not!
ozboygsl on 05/11/2021 - 07:45

+5

"It looks like the Christians want the power to protect future Folaus who would like gays to die," - nothing like hysterical hyperbole and baseless slanderous generalizations to expose the hypocrisy of what can get put up here.
lew380 on 05/11/2021 - 07:55

+3

If religions have to be accountable for the crusades and other was relegated to religion through ignorance. Atheists have to be accountable for Hitler. Same reasoning.
- trilby on 05/11/2021 - 10:09
  
  -2
  
  How is that the same reasoning - were Hitler and the Nazi's all atheists? Did they persecute Christians?
  - thierry on 05/11/2021 - 11:46
    
    He mainly persecuted the Jews, but he definitely was Atheist.
    - trilby on 05/11/2021 - 12:02
      
      -1
      
      If he was an Atheist, why did he make these quotes?
      
      “Besides that, I believe one thing: there is a Lord God! And this Lord God creates the peoples.” ~Adolf Hitler
      
      “We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations; we have stamped it out” ~Adolf Hitler
    - gromit on 05/11/2021 - 15:00
      
      -1
      
      Hitler wasn't an atheist, he was somewhere inbetween and many argue his twisted nature was because of his religious upbringing.
- MessyG on 05/11/2021 - 15:02
  
  Hitler wasn't an atheist though. One of his tactics was to use Christianity to recruit. Look up "Positive Christianity" which unfortunately has been coopted by certain religious groups to this day. He wanted to use Christianity to control people, so basically the worst form of Christian.
  - lew380 on 06/11/2021 - 11:24
    
    He was trying to use evolutionary principles to develop a super race. Sure, he used the remnants of the Christian population when it suited him. I've never read mein kampf, but from what I've heard, there is very little Christian doctrine and boat loads of atheistic and evolutionary reasoning. Survival of the fittest played out in his idealogy as real as it gets. His atrocities were atheistic In nature, he chose his own path and killed any morality he may have once had.
    - MessyG on 06/11/2021 - 18:45
      
      Evil people will use whatever tale of morality they can to co-opt people. If you're going to view it through that lens then he was neither atheist nor Christian, he used the principles of both to get what he wanted. Just a plain evil psychopath.
      - lew380 on 07/11/2021 - 09:00
        
        @MessyG: What he believed and did was in stark opposition to fundamental Christian tenancies, he was a big fan of the nuclear family, got mad at Goebells for having an affair, he had a hint morality but what he is most know for is his loyalty to the Darwinian cause, he took his science of the day literally, adored Darwinian survival of the fittest to its fullest extents and applied it in policy. What he did was only possible through an intense atheistic lens, he lived his truth. Atheists don't get to pick their mascots.
Boogerman on 05/11/2021 - 08:40

-3

"The three issues that will face opposition within the Liberal party …"

Well whoda thunk?

As per research (lots of it):
Lower education & IQ correlates to conservative voting.
Lower education & IQ correlates to religious belief.
rump parliament on 05/11/2021 - 08:43

+1

Pharmacists supply the morning-after pill, not doctors, and they've had the ability to refuse to supply medication that they conscientiously object to for decades (with the caveat that they have to be able point you in the direction of another supplier). But it's not a big issue because the vast majority of pharmacists supply it and so it never comes up.

Similar thing with GP's prescribing MS-2 Step (combo medication for early termination of pregnancy) - my experience is most GP's don't complete the training modules for it so they don't have to prescribe it and then refer people onto the handful of gyno-focused GP's that do.

This law is dumb but it probably won't actually impact healthcare in any meaningful way.
- jerrus on 05/11/2021 - 12:44
  
  I think you mean the hysterical reaction to the law is dumb, all it is doing is codifiing what you say won't have an impact, and giving peace of mind and certainty to a large number of concerned people. Surley thats a win
  - MessyG on 05/11/2021 - 15:04
    
    The creation of this law is a hysterical reaction in itself. Seriously, create a sweeping law because someone was held accountable for an Instagram post? That is the definition of hysterical.
    - jerrus on 05/11/2021 - 22:45
      
      This law and the reviews leading to it were in the works long before the instagram post.
EyyBanane on 05/11/2021 - 09:06

+2

A few years ago, I hired an IT support guy and then placed him to work with one of our banking clients. After a few weeks of training, he was ready to perform independently. In his shift, he was supposed to monitor and complete batch jobs performing hourly money market sweeps and interest calculations.

This was one of the world’s largest investment banks, and unfortunately, we had a major job failure on that day. It’s a very time sensitive function and if you don’t fix it quick enough, then we are obliged to pay a large fine as the firm will have to pay their customers regardless.

And guess what, this guy suddenly refuses to work on it. And why? Because these jobs handle interest calculations and it’s prohibited as per his religious beliefs.

Putting this into daily perspective, when you walk into your bank, what would you do if the teller says I can’t deal with your savings account or loan account but I can definitely help you with anything related to your interest-free checking account?

Or would you be okay when they say the monthly interest in your high interest savings did not credit because they had a guy whose freedom of belief prevented it?
Kenny Powers on 05/11/2021 - 09:10

No
tik tok on 05/11/2021 - 09:21

Oh boy. So many people are going to the PB!
Cluster on 05/11/2021 - 09:54

+4

I think people should have religious freedom. If you want to believe in a deity, or not believe in one, go ahead. It's none of my business.

I draw the line however when a religion/cult/belief starts to advocate to harm another group, either directly or through dog whistles.
OzHunterNSW on 05/11/2021 - 09:56

+1

NO…. Religion does not dictate to the State!
If you study even your local electorate, and others, you find "religion" plays a huge part. This is in part of the Christian dominance in the West, and to ensure they maintain that dominance, they will resort to numerous tactics to ensure they are the dominant force in the land.
- lew380 on 24/11/2021 - 10:53
  
  Numerous "tactics" like creating charities, helping the poor and needy, encouraging families to stick together, trying to fix this degenerate society, etc. How about atheists help out with charitable giving, at the moment you contribute very little, unless it's a panda or polar bear(it was a scam).
reactor-au on 05/11/2021 - 10:33

+4

I support just about anything that means more freedoms.
Being able to choose whom to do business with, whom to hire, whom to spend time with, what to believe, freedom to express my views, etc is my business so what is it to you?

Don't be a snowflake, if someone's view is different to yours it shouldn't offend you, it doesn't make them wrong and you right. Find something useful to do, build a bridge and get over it.
- connorlo on 05/11/2021 - 11:39
  
  spot on @reactor-au, spot on ;)
fprjet on 05/11/2021 - 11:03

+6

Wow….Look a religion bashing page, where all the ashiest come together……People should be entitled to their beliefs… A doctor should not be forced to do an abortion and kill an unborn if it goes against his belief….. Go find a non religious doctor. It's a good thing Athiest don/t rape murder/Pedophilia etc etc….. Their are evil people in every organization Churches, Goverment, Education and people who are not in organizations ….A priest should not be forced to marry a gay couple, they can go to a celebrant . People should have a choice, when you take this away you take away their freedom….
- MessyG on 05/11/2021 - 15:05
  
  +1
  
  Doctors aren't forced to do abortions. They can refer to another doctor if they object. This is enshrined in practice. This law just isn't needed and is quite divisive.
Drumadd on 05/11/2021 - 11:05

No new laws and no exceptions. Just move to another country that caters for your arrogant ways. Abide by the laws of the country you reside in or leave ……
- jerrus on 05/11/2021 - 12:46
  
  Did this apply before the gay marriage bill passed? asking for a friend
Drdrain on 05/11/2021 - 11:26

+1

It's ghastly, but I still think he's entitled to his opinion. I'd bet my life savings on him being in the closet.
thierry on 05/11/2021 - 11:36

+9

The reality - is atheism, agnosticism.. etc.. is still a set of beliefs just like religion. Atheist, Christians, Muslims all have beliefs and views, and should be treated with equal weight.

Some of the comments against religions are so bigoted in this thread.

We are not all one, everyone has different views.. no one should be forced to do anything against their conscience - that means, a christian doctor should be able to decline doing an abortion, an atheist doctor should not be forced to do an abortion, an agnostic celebrant should be able to perform a gay marriage celebration if they agree with it. Everyone should have a choice.
- reactor-au on 05/11/2021 - 12:05
  
  +1
  
  For many people, freedom of choice is only ok so long as that freedom doesn't lend to a view and a choice different to their own because that would offend them. Hence this thread even exists.
- belongsinforums on 05/11/2021 - 18:09
  
  -1
  
  i agree. nazis should definitely be able to express and hold their own views. after all, it's just a set of beliefs. disagree? bigot.
  - OzBarAnon on 05/11/2021 - 21:43
    
    +1
    
    Unironically yes. Nazis always get whipped out as some kind of trump card to justify state sanctioned suppression of ideologies, but the fact of the matter is that they're only invoked because of the instant gut-response that has been ingrained in people through constant exposure to them as evil (through school, films, video games, etc.). People openly wear Che Guevara shirts, or ones with a hammer and sickle without issue. If you support freedom of expression (not necessarily calls to violence) of political ideologies in general, then the same should apply for national socialism.
    - belongsinforums on 05/11/2021 - 21:57
      
      -1
      
      Obviously the difference is that nazis attempted genocide. Personally i draw the line at genocide
      - OzBarAnon on 05/11/2021 - 22:08
        
        @belongsinforums: Mass murder on the scale of millions is okay, but specifically genocide is crossing a line I guess.
- meowbert on 09/11/2021 - 18:27
  
  Excellent and well made point.
Speckled Jim on 05/11/2021 - 11:55

+2

ScoMo, the emptiest of tubby vessels, got his orders "from the top".

Yeah, we're screwed.
sarahlump on 05/11/2021 - 12:06

Doesnt it also mean banks can deny Christians bank accounts and loans. Usury is a sin and forbidden to Christians. banks could forclose on their home loans too. Do they not think about how this legislation could be used to discriminate against their own people?
- jerrus on 05/11/2021 - 12:48
  
  That would be the bank discriminating based on the customers belief. if the bank considers usury a sin I'm sure all the people with homeloans with that bank would be very happy.
  - sarahlump on 05/11/2021 - 16:09
    
    especially the people with savings accounts that grow interest. I was kinda trying to show how rediculous this whole protestant crusade is. I'm sure its just a handful of people who are afraid of being irrelevant if they cant find some way to oppress people.
- SlavOz on 05/11/2021 - 16:40
  
  +1
  
  Doesnt it also mean banks can deny Christians bank accounts and loans
  
  Yes, it could also mean that an electricity company could deny service to someone who's had an abortion or streams pornography because they find those things immoral.
  
  It could also mean social media companies, which hold a monopoly on public discourse, can ban certain people from ever having a voice (as they're already doing).
  
  However, generally speaking, larger corporations have a public responsibility which goes beyond the legal requirements of smaller businesses. Eg in the case of the banks, they can't really claim to independent private businesses when the government just bails them out any time they lose money, or controls the housing market to the point where banks become a necessary government tool.
  - [Deactivated] on 07/11/2021 - 22:27
    
    +1
    
    We said, like a lot of your previous comments. I take back all the mean things I've directed towards you, izvini.
    - SlavOz on 07/11/2021 - 23:06
      
      Nema problema
sarahlump on 05/11/2021 - 12:29

I read lord of the rings. can I discriminate against people too?
maxyzee on 05/11/2021 - 13:50

To the people in support of these bills.

So if I own a coffee shop and I was a religious and conservative person that believes LGTBQ is sinful etc. A customer walks in and orders a coffee however I suspect this customer is LGBTQ, because of the way dress or demeanour or whatever point is I think this customer is LGBTQ.

Should I be allowed to refuse service and not take this customer’s coffee order?

This is obviously referring to the 2018 US Supreme Court case ruling. Which ruled in favour of the cake shop owner.

Should we be more like the US and allow for business owners to refuse service based on religious ideology?
- ozhunter on 05/11/2021 - 14:34
  
  +2
  
  This is obviously referring to the 2018 US Supreme Court case ruling. Which ruled in favour of the cake shop owner.
  
  He wouldn't design a same-sex cake for anyone.
  
  It's like expecting a person who makes kids cakes to force him to make an adult one.
  - maxyzee on 05/11/2021 - 14:38
    
    Ok. I guess I can sorta see the reasoning behind that.
    
    But what about the first example. Had this been a coffee shop instead of a cake shop and that owner refused to take the order and it was just for a regular cappuccino, nothing special should the owner be allowed to refuse?
    - ozhunter on 05/11/2021 - 14:51
      
      No I don't think so. The person receiving the service doesn't seem to be what any of these laws are about, more about what a person can be forced to do.
      - maxyzee on 05/11/2021 - 14:58
        
        @ozhunter: Well isn’t the coffee shop owner being ‘forced’ to serve the LGBTQ person if they don’t want to be sued for discrimination?
        
        ozhunter on 05/11/2021 - 15:09
        
        +1
        
        @maxyzee: I guess you could see it that way, but as I said, that's doesn't seem to be what any of these laws are about. If you're asking if they should be able to do that, then I would think not.
        
        That same-sex couple was allowed to buy any cake in that cake shop like everybody else.
        
        maxyzee on 05/11/2021 - 16:16
        
        @ozhunter: Well I’m glad that at least on this front we agree.
        
        It just begs the question though, this clause why is it needed in the first place?
        
        In what kind of scenario would these bills be applied? I’m genuinely curious.
        
        jerrus on 05/11/2021 - 17:39
        
        +1
        
        @maxyzee: Its not for people to refuse service in general it is for people to not participate in what they consider imoral activity. You can buy any cake or order any coffee but you can't force me to make a custom cake/coffee that is customised to say something I don't want to be a part of saying.
        
        OzBarAnon on 05/11/2021 - 21:50
        
        @maxyzee: Well the cake shop ruling in the US that you mentioned would be an example. The idea is that someone would not be forced to perform a particular action that goes against a religious belief. As far as I can tell, there's nothing that a Christian would consider immoral about selling a coffee. It's the same coffee being sold to a gay person as it is to anybody else. Were the customer to request a pro-LGBT message on the cup or as coffee-art, then that particular request would involve them writing something that they find immoral. When it comes to hiring, I think an overtly religious organisation would want its employees to be of that same religion for obvious reasons.
- sarahlump on 05/11/2021 - 16:12
  
  -1
  
  I feel like im living in a bubble but who are the people in support of this bill? can they come forward and name themselves so I can be sure to avoid them? I feel like this is a few people who are afraid of becoming irrelevant so they're trying to find some way to hurt people.
  - screensaver on 05/11/2021 - 16:30
    
    one nation and mark Latham spring to mind. Is Fred Nile still around? Nile the crocodile
  - jerrus on 05/11/2021 - 17:34
    
    I may be living in a bubble… identify yourselves so I can root you out of my bubble!
  - jerrus on 05/11/2021 - 17:49
    
    +2
    
    It really isn't about trying to hurt people, if you really believe life begins at conception then abortion is something you don't want to be a part of. If you really believe Marriage is a sacred institution ordained by God as between man and woman, then you are trying to be true to your failth it isn't about hurting people. If you got out of the bubble you may realise that people who disagree with you are people with different ideas/world view not bad people using a world view to "hurt people"
    - screensaver on 05/11/2021 - 18:58
      
      Pharisee type people are bad people. If you know your Bible you will know who they are. Jesus hated them. Actually they killed Jesus, because he was diffferent, outside the norm, They are persecuters
      - jerrus on 05/11/2021 - 20:51
        
        +1
        
        @screensaver: I am rather familiar with the bible and what you are saying sounds incorrect or at the very least completely irrelevant. Saying "Jesus hated them" shows how little you know of the Christianity, Jesus wasn't very big on hate. The pharasies stuck ridgedly to rules in spite of the underlying intent and couldn't see the forest for the tree's. Not wanting to be a part of abortion or believeing that marriage is between a man and a woman are not forms of persecution. A Pharisee would condem a woman for having an abortion, that is not what is happening here. The catholic church and most other christians have been reading and studying the bible for a long time and they disagree with your assertions.
        
        When did disagreeing with someone become hateful? Are the people against the proposed laws fueled by hatered of the supporters?
        
        screensaver on 05/11/2021 - 22:28
        
        @jerrus: not seeing that gays are being persecuted makes you very short sighted.
        
        jerrus on 05/11/2021 - 22:39
        
        +1
        
        @screensaver: That is not what I said. I said that disagreeing with gay marriage is not persecution.
        
        screensaver on 05/11/2021 - 22:58
        
        @jerrus: The problem is that you and your cronies not only dont see they are being persecuted, but you dont care that they are. Its very disturbing
        
        jerrus on 05/11/2021 - 23:09
        
        +1
        
        @screensaver: Again please actually respond to what I said and don't project that on me. What I find disturbing is you’re not engaging in an explanation just making broad accusations. Which cronies? What evidence do you have to say I don't care? If I don't see it how can I not care that they are? you contradict yourself in your own sentence.
        If I am wrong help me see. What persecution am I not seeing?
        
        screensaver on 05/11/2021 - 23:11
        
        @jerrus: I have spent enough time on this, I have got to move on.
        
        jerrus on 05/11/2021 - 23:13
        
        +1
        
        @screensaver: I think you mean you insulted my character with no basis other than my initial statement which you've ignored, projected vile hatred onto me and when called on it wouldn't apologise, just moved on.
        
        screensaver on 05/11/2021 - 23:47
        
        -2
        
        @jerrus: apologise to someone who doesnt believe in equality? Not likely.
        
        jerrus on 08/11/2021 - 09:46
        
        @screensaver: So if someone doesn't agree with you on what equality is, you can insult them and impune them with the worst motives? Nice way to boost your virtue, anyone who doesn't agree with redefining this at the same time as me is not only wrong but can be treated however I like because they disagree with me.
        
        No forgiveness, very christian perspective - odd given your statements elsewhere
        
        screensaver on 08/11/2021 - 14:50
        
        @jerrus: So you think equality can be re defined. Heres what Jesus thought of the Pharisees, I suggest you refresh your memory. Snakes springs to mind
        https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023&ve…
        
        jerrus on 08/11/2021 - 15:44
        
        @screensaver: You obviously think equality can be redefined, if you asked someone if equality included gay marriage at any time in history prior to the last 30-40 years (being generous) they would say no and most would think you were mad. Note through this whole discussion you haven’t even acknowledge there could be a difference on this issue based on anything other than hate. This seems a little judgemental.
        
        Not sure how Pharisees come into it, saying marriage is between a man and a woman is often argued that marriage is primarily about procreation and unlike an infertile couple where procreation is incidentally impossible; in a gay marriage procreation is impossible in principle. That’s not about hate or bigotry but what marriage is for
        
        Given a "biblical view of marriage" is considered a euphemism for traditional marriage, I'm not sure why you would use the bible as a support for your arguments, Jesus seemed to think marriage was only between a man and a woman not to mention the old testament.
        https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019%3A1-12&version=NLV
        
        screensaver on 08/11/2021 - 15:56
        
        @jerrus: 10 His followers said to Him, “If that is the way of a man with his wife, it is better not to be married.” 11 But Jesus said to them, “Not all men are able to do this, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some men who from birth will never be able to have children. There are some men who have been made so by men. There are some men who have had themselves made that way because of the holy nation of heaven. The one who is able to do this, let him do it.”
        
        jerrus on 08/11/2021 - 16:25
        
        @screensaver: The NLV is a product of the 1960's simplifiing the language for first nations people in Canada, trying to bring out elaborate meanings from it is like trying to shrink an image and then blow it up without losing resolution. Also you should probably read the prior passages for the full context
        
        Try using the KJV
        
        10 His disciples said to him, “If that is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
        
        11 He replied, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it has been given.
        
        12 For there are eunuchs who have been made so from birth and eunuchs who were made so by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let those accept this who can do so.”[c]
        
        Or the NCV
        
        10 His disciples said to him, “If that is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
        11 He replied, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it has been given.
        12 For there are eunuchs who have been made so from birth and eunuchs who were made so by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let those accept this who can do so.”[c]
        
        screensaver on 08/11/2021 - 16:38
        
        +1
        
        @jerrus: I have other things to do than argue with a brick wall. I am glad that gays had a win in marriage equality around the world. They deserve it after all their unnecessary struggles. Common sense prevailed. Your version of Christainity puts more people off it rather than bringing them into the Kingdom. I love it how Jesus sticks it up the establishment. Thats the way it should be
        
        jerrus on 08/11/2021 - 17:02
        
        @screensaver: You are the brick wall, I've engaged with what you brought up and the new tangents you brought into the discussion, will you concede that even one person opposing the redefinition did it without hate? The fact that people have been mistreated is reason to treat them well not necessarily redefine words and institutions that have existed for thousands of years the way they want. When you say "your version" I think your a bit of the mark the view you have is the fringe view in Christianity. The churches that are growing fastest/shrinking the least are the ones that have a more orthodox teaching on a range of issues (not hateful, love the sinner hate the sin) so I'm not sure you will be bringing more people into the kingdom. I agree that Jesus isn't one for the establishment but look around you, if we had this discussion in a workplace who would get reprimanded/diversity trained/fired? Look where all the money (local and international) went in the gay marriage debate, can you name one major listed Australian company that opposed the redefinition, most supported it and a few were silent on the matter?
        
        Face it on this topic you are in the establishment.
        
        screensaver on 08/11/2021 - 18:11
        
        @jerrus: The Catholics used to burn people at the stake, and they thought they were right too. They even killed the Knights Templar, the good guys who protected Jerusalem. And then what happened, Israel was lost and we are still paying for that today. They were protecting Davids temple and it is still lost. So thousands of years old texts are not necessaily interpreted correctly or just are not right, such as polygamy
        
        jerrus on 08/11/2021 - 21:09
        
        @screensaver: This is nothing to do with what was said above which you should try to address, I ask again will you concede that even one person opposing the redefinition did it without hate? Nobody is advocating burning at the stake (this was actually predominantly done by secular authorities not the church.) The argument could be turned on you or anyone about anything, you also think your right and could be wrong about it. If your argument is about the effect of the christianity on history, then you will through the a lot of babies out with that bathwater, the gradual abolishion of slavery, women having to consent to be married, the end of infanticide, charity the poor and needy to name a few. Most of the moral lens used in society is derived from christianity even the idea of equality.
        
        The dead sea scrolls actually show that the texts in the bible were suprisingly consistent with the older texts. The knights templar were actually destroyed largley by the French King, They were based in the ruins of the temple that was destroyed by the romans in 66AD and didn't have many ancient texts. The bigger loss was at the fall of constantinople but this was offset somewhat by the sack carried out by the venitians in a prior crusade.
        
        screensaver on 10/11/2021 - 17:44
        
        +1
        
        @jerrus: I will speak up aganst denial of human rights done for whatever reason
        
        jerrus on 10/11/2021 - 21:13
        
        @screensaver: Good for you. Once again you haven't actually engaged with anything I wrote your just arguing with what you wish I said. I have not at any point in this discussion suggested reversing the redefinition of marriage or the denial of any rights. Could you please not project motives onto me.
        
        I keep having to ask if you can concede that even one person who opposed the redefinition did it without hate? the fact you won't speaks volumes of your own bigotry and judgmentalism
        
        sarahlump on 10/11/2021 - 16:53
        
        @screensaver: you cant debate religious people. its their trump card they genuinely think they are right and anything else is wrong and cause of their rightness they can do no harm. it explains all the shit they do.
        
        jerrus on 11/11/2021 - 15:54
        
        @sarahlump: I didn't bring religion into this or support my points using religion. @screensaver brought up the bible quotes and I pointed out others to rebut his. Your sweeping generalisations are not applicable to all religious people, Israel means those that wrestle with God, in the Catholic church there are literal lifetimes worth of material debating back and forth on various aspects of the faith and morality.
        In terms of who
        
        you can't debate
        
        I've been trying to have a debate/discussion and if any reasonable person read through this thread they would see slogans blindly applied and replies that have little to nothing to do with the topic or even the previous comment but they aren't coming from me.
        This all started when you said
        
        I feel like im living in a bubble but who are the people in support of this bill? can they come forward and name themselves so I can be sure to avoid them?
        
        Maybe you feel like your in a bubble because you aren't actually listening/hearing what people are saying because you have a very simplistic view and explanation for where they are coming from
    - MessyG on 07/11/2021 - 08:16
      
      Unpopular opinion but if you don't want to be a part of abortion then you should be targeting the people responsible for 100% of unwanted pregnancies (spoiler: it ain't women).
      - jerrus on 08/11/2021 - 09:48
        
        @MessyG: Really? So Women are not at all responsible for unwanted pregnancies? I hope the police have an officer at every clinic this will be a great way to catch the rapist, since every abortion is evidence of a rape.
        
        sarahlump on 10/11/2021 - 16:54
        
        -1
        
        @jerrus: so you're saying people are responsible for pregnancies? who's responsible for cancer? should we put a cop in front of the cancer ward so if somebody survives they go to prison?
        
        jerrus on 10/11/2021 - 20:52
        
        +1
        
        @sarahlump: I think you missed the sarcasm in my comment, @MissG implied that men are responsible for 100% of unwanted pregnancies, I was showing how absurd this position is.
      - inasero on 12/11/2021 - 10:22
        
        +1
        
        @MessyG: It takes two to tango
    - sarahlump on 10/11/2021 - 16:51
      
      -1
      
      intent < impact. some one might not mean to hurt people because of their beliefs but that means nothing. I'm p sure bush believed dropping bombs on schools was genuinely a good thing.
payless69 on 05/11/2021 - 14:13

poll please ??
sir-screwball on 05/11/2021 - 14:27

+2

Classic LNP
maxyzee on 05/11/2021 - 14:55

Another scenario a bit more specific to these bills here in AU.

Scenario 1.
Secular doctor who happens to work for a NGO/charity/healthcare centre that had tendencies to a particular religion but wasn’t by definition a religious organisation. This doctor gave birth control advice to a patient whether it be a referral, prescription etc. The executives/owner finds out about this service and proceeds to reprimand the doctor as it goes against the ethos or terms of agreement for employment at the organisation.

Scenario 2.
Conservative doctor that happens to work at a secular NGO/charity/healthcare centre. This doctor refused to serve a patient because the patient was wanting advice or some service for birth control. The executives/owner finds out about this refusal of service and proceeds to reprimand the doctor as it goes against their terms of agreement at the organisation.

So under these new bills which doctor has recourse for unfair dismissal/reprimand? Both? Neither? One but not the other? If so which one?
- MessyG on 05/11/2021 - 15:07
  
  +1
  
  There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the medical profession here. First of all, if a doctor is uncomfortable with a request, they have always had the right to decline and refer to another doctor.
  
  Secondly, Catholic healthcare organisations already decline to provide birth control, birth control advice, and abortion services. St Vincents is the biggest provider that does this.
  
  Can we please use some other profession to sort this out, medicine had this sorted yonks ago and it's never been an issue.
  
  One footy player makes a social media post and gets the boot and suddenly there is hysteria and lawmaking.
  - maxyzee on 05/11/2021 - 16:06
    
    Well the heart this ‘Folau’ is
    “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”.”
    
    It specifically calls out health practitioners. Why?
    
    So if a conservative doctor was uncomfortable with a particular type of service and referred the patient to another doctor then fine. However if that Socorro just plane doesn’t want to refer to another doctor or another doctor doesn’t exist because the organisation services a remote area then that doctor can refuse that service? Would that clause allow this?
    
    Also in the inverted scenario if a doctor was serving at St Vincent’s would this clause allow St Vincent to dismiss a doctor that gave birth control services?
    
    I can see why one footy player’s post has stirred up this hysteria on both sides. I can see on the one hand Falou should be allowed to post whatever he believes from his own personal account to express himself. However I also see that what you post as someone that is in a position that he is with many young people viewing him as their hero, posting something that could negatively impact a teenage boy that’s coming to terms with their sexuality should have consequences and it did indeed breach the terms of employment.
    - jerrus on 05/11/2021 - 17:44
      
      +1
      
      To be clear Catholics don't have the same problem with non-abortifacent-birthcontrol, as in they think it is wrong but it is not injuring/killing a third party. If the doctor, go against the ethos, on thier own time no issue if it is while using facilities owned by the church then their would be repercussions. The Catholic view is that abortion is taking an inocent human life and so it should be illegal, using contraception is seen as sinful but should not be illegal as it isn't harming others.
    - MessyG on 05/11/2021 - 18:06
      
      You want to know why it calls out health practitioners?
      
      Because it's a big dogwhistle by politicians who have no idea how health works (and who don't care, they know people will fall for it hook line and sinker). Blind trust in this crowd is naive.
Herbse on 05/11/2021 - 15:23

+1

Why are we protecting make believe things again?
sarahlump on 05/11/2021 - 16:13

Don't churches already own all the charities? didn't they pass that domestic violence thing where they give a church $5000 if they see somebody with DV?
- screensaver on 05/11/2021 - 16:33
  
  yes the recipient has to get past the church counsellor
helloworld2021 on 05/11/2021 - 19:05

I would support a law that protects people against religious discrimination but I wouldn't support anything that allows people to get away with hate crimes/hate speech by crying religious discrimination
LFO on 05/11/2021 - 19:46

+3

to protect future Folaus who would like gays to die

Funny how the fuss was about non heterosexual individuals.

Pretty sure Israel Folau also listed quite a few other others.

Why just one group only???
Because they are powerful and well organized?
- screensaver on 05/11/2021 - 22:36
  
  +1
  
  no, they are just individuals trying to live their lives, without being persecuted. And their morals and existance questioned.
- deme on 06/11/2021 - 17:59
  
  Because they are powerful and well organized?
  
  The Gays™ are powerful?
  
  to protect future Folaus who would like gays to die
  
  This is Hitler level shit.
  
  And you are nitpicking that they only listed "The Gays™"?
  
  Note you didn't even specify other groups Folaus is against.
  
  According to [1]:
  
  1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "WARNING Drunks, Homosexuals, Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists, Idolators HELL AWAITS YOU. REPENT! ONLY JESUS SAVES”.
  
  Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
  
  Oh he said the bushfires were not caused by The Greens [2] but rather people taking it up the arse. [3]
  
  What groups are missing that Folau is against?
  The bible should be rated NC, it's pretty (profanity) up if you read it.
  
  [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Folau
  [2] They really didn't. https://www.mondaq.com/australia/climate-change/883046/debun…
  [3] https://www.9news.com.au/national/israel-folau-bushfires-dro…
  - screensaver on 06/11/2021 - 18:20
    
    +1
    
    but this one passage does not sum up the whole christian message, so is misleading, and is just a homophobe launching a attack. Folau has said other things about gender issues, sayng they are being coerced into not knowing their gender., when clearly some young people are not destined to become the *acceptable" men and women in his eyes. He thinks he knows what he is talking about when he knows nothing.

Would You Support Law That Protects Religious Discrimination?

Comments

New Forum Topics