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

        • deme on 06/11/2021 - 18:23

          Can you link to one? I don't doubt Folau has said some evil stuff

          • screensaver on 06/11/2021 - 18:26

            @deme: I briefly looked at some video of him and it was on there, I think it was at his church. Be a couple of years or so ago now

            • deme on 06/11/2021 - 18:28

              @screensaver: I think I remember the one now!

              He's nuts but not as funny as Alex Jones.

  • RocketSwitch on 06/11/2021 - 00:44
    +2

    Oh, look the government trying to control our lives again. I'm surprised we're able to leave our homes again.

  • CMH on 06/11/2021 - 04:18
    +1

    Religion should be for adults only. Bringing religion to kids should be considered grooming.

    • Vomo on 06/11/2021 - 10:36
      -2

      Or considered tradition. You know, that thing before we all became so wise.

      • CMH on 06/11/2021 - 23:36

        Like that tradition of burning young women at the stake?

        • Vomo on 07/11/2021 - 20:47

          If parents are raising their kids to do that, then yes I agree, very bad.

  • conza on 06/11/2021 - 08:37
    +3

    Umm where's the poll? Missed opportunity to see what bargain hunters would want, oh well.

  • Vomo on 06/11/2021 - 10:31

    Most religious people are moderate, in fact millions of people, and if it brings joy and happiness to their life then we all benefit.
    If a government is appeasing certain anti religious political factions just to get more votes then that is wrong.

  • GodsSon23 on 06/11/2021 - 13:53
    +1

    "It looks like the Christians want the power to protect future Folaus who would like gays to die" eye roll. OP is a div.

    • screensaver on 06/11/2021 - 14:32

      No, they just want the power to ostracise gays

  • wtfnodeal on 06/11/2021 - 15:23

    “It looks like the ‘pretended’ Christians want the power to protect future Folaus who would like gays to die,"
    Fixed that for you. No religious believes will ever tell you to discriminate others but only those pretended ones do so.

    • OzBarAnon on 06/11/2021 - 17:17

      Lol, this is blatantly untrue. "No religious beliefs will ever tell you to discriminate against others." Didn't realise that religion and discrimination are somehow mutually exclusive. There are religious scholars who study religious text for years and years who disagree on interpretation or certain tenets in relation to things like this, but I guess you just know this fact about all religions as a blanket statement.

      • wtfnodeal on 06/11/2021 - 18:13

        The problem lies with the people not the religions themselves. We are the flawed ones when incorrectly interpreting them or evil ones deliberately misinterpreting then in such ways to discriminate other religions.

        • OzBarAnon on 06/11/2021 - 19:34

          How do you know? It's very presumptive of you to just say that all discrimination within religion is misinterpretation. How do you know that no religion genuinely has discriminatory tenets within?

          • wtfnodeal on 06/11/2021 - 20:36

            @OzBarAnon: Because if the gods or lords of whatever those believe in would have wiped out others themselves instead of inefficiently through humanity. Perhaps I should have said religion without the “s” as there should only be one to begin with but because of the greed of some individuals who expanded them into many with inputs of their own interpretations in favour of themselves and against others. Ask yourself whatever you have heard of or what you understand of those religions are truly ones intended for by the gods or lords of those religions or just some messages passed around by people through word of mouth, books or other mediums in their own languages? Religions are intended for good but we abuse them just like how we abuse the use of technologies and drugs.

          • dizzle on 06/11/2021 - 22:04

            @OzBarAnon: Not that I'm religious (I'm not), but that's easily explainable.

            The bible was written by men, from stories passed down by men. Chinese whispers changes those stories and you get different interpretations when the bible is written. You then get different versions of the bible, that get slightly different interpretations and maybe even altering a version of the bible down the ages with thier bias.
            You get different priests/churches/denominations interpreting those teachings differently, and faiths break off. Islam, Judeism and Christianity all come from the same beginnings (after all Jesus was King of the Jews). Faiths like Mormans branch off with other beliefs (A third book of the bible that was found in the backyard of the "founder". In another 200 years who's to say there won't be a fifth book to the bible that only a subsection beleive.
            There are stories in the Norse faiths that run similar to Christianity with Odin being stuck to a tree (read cross), stabbed with a spear and was in darkness for days. He sacrificed himself for others. But again, these are stories passed down verbally and taken with a grain of salt.

            So with that in mind it's understandable how new religions/faiths split off. But it also proposes that if the Bible is gods word written by man, which Bible is actually the right one.
            My interpretation is….If there was an all powerful God that has humaintys best interests at heart, would they really want you treating others (ie LGBT) like crap?

            • OzBarAnon on 06/11/2021 - 22:54

              @dizzle:

              If there was an all powerful God that has humaintys best interests at heart, would they really want you treating others (ie LGBT) like crap?

              Maybe. It might seem illogical to you, but there are many religious practices from many religions that you might find nonsensical or illogical. Aztec religious ceremony involved human sacrifice and extreme violence. Religions don't necessarily involve singular entities that have the "best interests of humanity" at heart, nor do their motivations and ways of operation have to make logical sense to you. The point is that @wtfnodeal's statement that religious discrimination would necessarily be the result of misinterpretation of religious tenets is nonsense.

              • wtfnodeal on 07/11/2021 - 00:28
                +1

                @OzBarAnon: “Aztec religious ceremony involved human sacrifice and extreme violence.” Did their god rock up in front of them and asked them to sacrifice human or just the message was passed down from people to people told them to do so?

                • OzBarAnon on 07/11/2021 - 01:11
                  -1

                  @wtfnodeal: That's irrelevant. You're asserting that their religious beliefs that involve discrimination are inherently incorrect. No religious believes will ever tell you to discriminate others but only those pretended ones do so. was your original statement. "Only pretended" beliefs will involve discrimination. A religious belief can be genuine without first hand experience of a god appearing before you and talking to you. Just because a human interpreted an event as a sign from god does not make it "pretend." When typhoon winds destroyed the Mongol invasion forces attempting to invade Japan, many Japanese Buddhists believed it to be a divine act (hence the name "Kamikaze"/divine wind). Though the event is not overtly divine, it was given a religious significance, and Buddhists genuinely believed it to be so. This is not pretend, these are genuine beliefs in-line with the religion.

                  • wtfnodeal on 07/11/2021 - 12:05

                    @OzBarAnon: Yeah how about the arguments of some about the natural disasters are consequences of pollution and harms humans have done to earth? Genuinely believe doesn’t necessarily mean the truth and perhaps we should learn to take a look at ourselves and what we have done to determine whether we reap what we sow before foolishly blaming it is an act of gods etc.

                    • OzBarAnon on 08/11/2021 - 00:36

                      @wtfnodeal: It's not about truth of reality, it's about whether or not a tenet is a genuine core value of a religion. Religious beliefs do not have to be true to reality to be religious beliefs. Otherwise this law would do literally nothing because there'd be no way to prove in a court of law that "their" religion is the true understanding of reality. In the instance that one religious position were to succeed in providing sufficient evidence in court, it would then exclude any other religious body (that holds any differing belief) from utilizing that law as you would have legally established that the former religion was "true."

                      • wtfnodeal on 08/11/2021 - 10:39

                        @OzBarAnon: I am not saying reality truth that we can prove it with our science and technology. Truth in such ways how their gods want people to live their lives. Religions will never truely want people to discriminate against each other. The pretended religions are not religions but false messages passed on from people to people such as a Christian can called itself a Christian but it doesn’t mean it has the character of a Christian and lives a life that it’s god intends for it to live.

                        • OzBarAnon on 08/11/2021 - 19:38

                          @wtfnodeal: This discussion has become circular. "Discrimination would never be a true part of a religion because no religion would truly want anyone to discriminate against each other." You've not proven that a religion would not want discrimination, you've just asserted that human interpretation resulting in discrimination must be interpretation as an axiom. Is it only pretend religions that discriminate against murderers, thieves, or bestiality?

                          • wtfnodeal on 08/11/2021 - 21:55
                            +1

                            @OzBarAnon: If you leave gods out of the ‘religions equation’ then they are not religions just as simple as if I believe and follow whatever you say doesn’t make OzBarAnonian a religion. It is up to you to believe whether gods want any religions to discriminate each other as I cannot ask any gods to show up in front of you to prove that.

              • dizzle on 07/11/2021 - 10:09

                @OzBarAnon: Hence part of why I'm not religious. But again, did the Aztec god demand those sacrifices, or was that just priests interpreting what God wanted? (and generally sacrificing those that would probably do the religion harm/to poor to help the religion)

                • OzBarAnon on 08/11/2021 - 19:53

                  @dizzle: I've already explained that religious beliefs are often divined through interpretation, not literal linguistic transmission from a god. I've also already explained why literal truth of a religion's beliefs is irrelevant to whether or not those beliefs are legitimately held as tenets for that religion. But even with cursory thought, it makes perfect sense as to why a religion would act to destroy those that oppose it, the same way that any political activist group seeks to push their side. Climate activists will push for changes in legislature to dismantle or weaken their opponents. This doesn't mean that all climate activists are just self-serving and trying to eliminate opposition to their side, they can genuinely believe that it is necessary as their position is the correct one.

                  Another simpler example would be this: you run a pawn shop. Another rival pawn shop exists, however, you believe them to be acting illegally because they steal items and then fence them. Are you acting out of pure self-interest to want them shut down? They're competition and taking your customers, but it also makes perfect sense to shut them down because they are immoral.

  • diddy50 on 06/11/2021 - 16:06
    +1

    The ACL doesn't speak for Christians

  • diddy50 on 06/11/2021 - 16:10

    Also the ACL doesn't speak on behalf of the Liberal Party.

    I dislike the ACL a lot. They are horrible lobby group, nothing more.

  • diddy50 on 06/11/2021 - 16:13

    Also you have not seen the proposed Bill, you're making shit up and conflating issues.

    Your opinion reads like Labor or Greens propaganda attack piece. 🙄🥲

    • deme on 06/11/2021 - 17:49

      Your opinion reads like Labor or Greens propaganda attack piece. 🙄🥲

      See

      you're making shit up and conflating issues.

  • deme on 06/11/2021 - 17:46

    Would You Support Law That Protects Religious Discrimination?

    Would that protect Jews (from Hitler) or the Pope (from some poor gay kid)?
    ie. Discrimination against religion or discrimination via religion?

    I suspect those who want this law would not be for it if it was worded as "supporting Sharia law".

  • deme on 06/11/2021 - 17:48

    Tax Cults…. Religions

  • Eeples on 06/11/2021 - 18:50

    '“Folau clause” that would give legal protection to someone expressing a statement of belief…..'

    …it would give legal protection for someone to hate. Religion as their shield.

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

    …so doctors can refuse to do abortions and nurses can refuse to help. I suppose.

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

    … more hate shielded by religion.

  • nikey2k27 on 06/11/2021 - 19:00

    NEVER THEY ARE ASSHOLES THAT MADE US ALL VOTE FOR MY RIGHT TO BE ME AS MUCH AS I AM GLAD PEOPLE VOTE YES ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY NEVER NEED TO KNOW WHO HOMOPHOBIC ASSHOLES WERE IN MY LIFE. if Christian schools only want str8 people they do that now.

  • nikey2k27 on 06/11/2021 - 19:02

    Folau has the right to say what he wants just much I right to but if tell Woolworth is (profanity) and work at Woolworth I expected to be sacked

  • defecat0r on 06/11/2021 - 19:18

    Whatever happens, I don't want Christians to lose the right to make fools of themselves in public (fools for Christ). I think their unjustified silliness needs to out in the open where we can all see it.

  • ldq on 06/11/2021 - 19:23
    -2

    An anti-religious rant on a forum saturated with covid cultists.
    A concern over potential religious discrimination at a time when hundreds of thousands of people are not only being discriminated but excluded from the society because of their medical choices.
    The irony…

  • Mordaunt on 06/11/2021 - 19:42
    +1

    Folau didn't "want gays to die". If you're going to push an agenda at least do it honestly.

    • screensaver on 06/11/2021 - 20:27

      no he just wants them to live a loveless, scared life, trying not to sin and also seperated and ostracised from society

      • ldq on 06/11/2021 - 20:43

        I wonder how many actually did repent and began their new loveless lives? Folau must have some supernatural powers…
        Why the hell only the homosexuals are offended? I am an atheist, I am on his list and I could not care less.
        I actually welcome him saying anything he wants, I want this right to be guaranteed, because this would also be a guarantee of my right to say that all religions and cults are full of faeces.

        • Eeples on 09/11/2021 - 00:51
          +1

          Sure. But Folau has the greater reach because of his celebrity.
          Ie. your voices are not equally loud.

        • morse on 09/11/2021 - 04:11
          +1

          Atheists don’t typically suffer from discrimination, bullying, violence etc in Australia, many gay people do. He’s a sportsperson some young people look to him as a role model. Young gay people might be grappling with coming out to their friends and family, so saying being themselves is a sin may make them feel guilt or shame. Suicide rates are higher amongst LGBTI people than in the general population.

          It also puts the wind in the sails of other people who hold the same views to continue discriminatory or even violent behaviour. I’m not sure what it’s like now but only 10years ago in Sydney there people assaulting gay men in the street in areas like kings cross, Darlinghurst for fun, someone I know was bashed and suffered facial fractures and had months off work.

          At the end of the day Folau’s views weren’t consistent with the values of the organisation he worked for, as a public figure his free speech is limited by his contract with this employer. This isn’t unusual, I’m not a celebrity but there are limits on the type of public statements I can make even when I’m not speaking on behalf of my employer.

  • screensaver on 06/11/2021 - 20:55
    -2

    Galatians 2:21 I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die

    • defecat0r on 06/11/2021 - 22:08
      +1

      Interesting observation by our friend Saul of Tarsus here… What IF keeping the law COULD make us right with God? What IS required for forgiveness of sins? Does it indeed require a blood sacrifice? What might we find were we to peruse Scripture?

      Forgiveness requires repentance - turning away from evil ways; turning to God:
      2 Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

      Ezekiel 33:10-11 “Son of man, say to the Israelites, ‘This is what you are saying: “Our offenses and sins weigh us down, and we are wasting away because of them. How then can we live?”’ 11 Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’

      Isaiah 55:6-7 Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near. 7 Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

      It can’t be this simple? Show me an example where this is the case you might ask:
      Jonah 3:10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.

      How long is this law of God, the Torah to apply? Forever:
      2 Kings 17:37 And the statutes, the ordinances, the law, and the commandment which He wrote for you, you shall be careful to observe forever; you shall not fear other gods.

      Now for the serious question. In the Hebrew Scriptures we have the irrefutable, undeniable word of the Creator God. In light of the instructions Moses gives us in Deuteronomy 13 regarding the identification of false prophets, how should we respond to the teachings of the Apostle Paul? When the word of God tells us that the Law is just and right (Nehemiah 9:13), yet this individual refers to the Law of the Living God as a curse (Galatians 3:13), as a means of enslavement (Galatians 4:9), a ministry of death (2 Corinthians 3:7) and as weak and useless (Hebrews 7:18-19), WHO should we consider as possible the most wicked man to have ever lived, and how should we respond to this teaching should we value truth?

      • screensaver on 06/11/2021 - 22:41

        our bargain hunters will be pleased to know that the grace of God is a free gift and that our sins have already been paid for by christ blood sacrifice. You only have to believe that Christ is your saviour, ask for forgiveness, and be a good person, . that includes helping others less fortunate than yourself. I dont do much more than that.
        If I was Gay, I would say to the father, I have to live my life to make the most of it, so if I am sinning please forgive me, and please understand that I would like love in my life. In jesus name, amen

        • screensaver on 07/11/2021 - 13:06

          could start this prayer with Dear Heavenly Father

          • defecat0r on 07/11/2021 - 18:59

            @screensaver: I think your heart is in the right place, but your head on the other hand, maybe not so much.

            • screensaver on 07/11/2021 - 19:07

              @defecat0r: how so

              • defecat0r on 07/11/2021 - 19:30

                @screensaver: You believe there is a bus coming, it's going to hit and kill many people and you're keen to tell them to get out of the way. From my perspective however, I see no good reason for you to believe there is any bus at all.

                • screensaver on 07/11/2021 - 19:35

                  @defecat0r: and whats your alternative? To live as a monk trying to please God? Whats your solution?
                  And I do not doubt my salvation. I dont sin much at all.

                  • defecat0r on 07/11/2021 - 19:47

                    @screensaver: What's the alternative? I think it would be a good idea if we were all to re-evaluate the foundations we have for our deeply held beliefs, to put believing true things first, and abandon those beliefs that we find to be unjustified. Have you considered the possibility that the Christian God, or any god may not exist? If you were wrong, would you even want to know?

                    • screensaver on 07/11/2021 - 19:53

                      @defecat0r: I am 100% sure he does exist but there are some things in the bible which I cannot agree with. such s Paul saying women should stay silent in the church. That sounds to me like the men wanting to keep control over things like church property, I think our God is a good god, not a mean god and he gave us love as a gift

                      • defecat0r on 07/11/2021 - 20:05

                        @screensaver: 100% sure? That's pretty confident. What makes you so sure that the Christian God exists?

                        So you disagree with the Apostle Paul when it comes to the role women? I'm inclined to agree. Is there much else in the Bible that you think is not true?

                  • screensaver on 07/11/2021 - 19:48

                    @screensaver: See what gays are up against, people sticking their nose into their business, but providing no real solutions, other than leaving them in a dilemma. Saying I am alright, I can marry, I am acceptable to society and God, my sins are not as bad as yours. Yeah right

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 06/11/2021 - 21:04
    +5

    I dont support any law that dis allows free speech regardless of how people 'feel' about the words said everyone has the right to have their say.

    I dont agree with loads of crap i read online, see in the news, that is taught in schools etc but i respect everyone has there POV in life.

    'hurt' feelings and being offended seems to have replace common sense and facts in modern society

    If Christians dont like homosexuals i wouldnt recommend going to Martigra and if Homosexual dont like that fact certain regious groups dont support there way of life id suggest avoid a Church, Mosque etc

    Ill use a less extreme example - i dont like heavy metal i have friends that do, i dont go to heavy metal concerts - we can still be friends, they are not offended nether am i

    We can all get along and harmony but that doesnt mean we actually get along socially

    • CMH on 06/11/2021 - 23:35
      +1

      I don't think that without this law there is no free speech. Folau did not get arrested or get into any legal trouble for what he said.

      Free speech is protected, including what Folau said. However, the legal right to say something doesn't protect you from others exercising their own right to free speech by saying something back, or their right to shun you, your products or the company that you work for.

    • Ughhh on 07/11/2021 - 09:06

      I dont support any law that dis allows free speech regardless of how people 'feel' about the words

      Would you allow and have no hard feelings against someone saying bad things about your wife, mother, father or daughter/son?
      Like how they're going to die a painful slow death, violated in every way in some messed up John Wayne Gacy style?
      Kids bullying your kid (with words) at school because he's dyslexic, from a certain race, fat etc?

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 07/11/2021 - 14:56
        +1

        Honestly it is part of life i coped racism and fat shaming in school

        I dont condoned it and i think it should be stamped out but the idea that hurting someones feelings should be illegal is a stretch for me.

        I you dont have anything nice to say, say nothing if someone has nothing nice to say a out you stay away or stand up for yourself.

        Id rather my children learn that some people in the world are not nice and learn how to deal with it then shell them making them thin skinned and proned to metal health issues later in life becuz they cant deal woth conflict. I know loads of people on anti depression medication it isnt funny bcuz they have been brought up in a society that has shelled from hardship and parents that did everything for them and gave them everything

        Life isnt fair it never will be just reading all the OP on Ozbargin about over entilted ppl complaing about house prices, insurance issues, car prices etc has me realized that the everyone gets a ribbon generation is pretty stuffed imho.

        My wife kids parents etc should learn that life isnt a basket of roses. I honestly can say i learn lt the most from the hardest and most fair lessons in life it has made me who i am today. I got no hand outs and it wasn't always easy but it is life and you can't shield people from that

        • Ughhh on 07/11/2021 - 15:10
          +1

          I you dont have anything nice to say, say nothing

          By your reasoning, it's OK to say mean stuff if you have nothing nice to say.

          Bullying, hate speech and racism isn't something that we should just "accept". It's 2021, we should do better. If society didn't change, your wife would not be allowed to vote, work in certain jobs and have independence. Same for your daughter if you have any.

          People, including kids, have committed suicide or crime because of "words". While words can't hurt you physically, it can mentally and possibly be as damaging.

          While you survived your abuse - not sure of the extent compared to other people, it doesn't mean everyone will.

          • screensaver on 07/11/2021 - 17:07

            @Ughhh: in America civil rights legislation is the only defence for some eg blacks being harassed and assaulted by cops for no reason. prisners denied food and water and medical care. There was one poor prisoner locked up without food and they turned off his water, no mattress either, he died begging for water.

          • Trying2SaveABuck on 07/11/2021 - 17:33
            +1

            @Ughhh: Fair enough i personalky think anything that gives people 'less' of a voice regardless of the reason will result in further mental health issues but everyone is entilted to there own opinion

            Personally the way society is going i reckon it is getting wrost as there are certain topics that we 'cant talk' about without being called racist a homophone etc

            But is just my opinion

            the topic suicide is the defense used to push PC agendas but where is the evidence this will help? From what ive read fiancial stress is the biggest risk factor which i hear no one ever talk about.. .

            • Ughhh on 07/11/2021 - 18:10

              @Trying2SaveABuck:

              anything that gives people 'less' of a voice regardless of the reason will result in further mental health issues but everyone is entilted to there own opinion

              As in 'less' of a voice to abuse people? Does abusing people help with one owns mental issues? So I'm feeling like crap today, it's ok for me to go yelling profanities at you and being racist? Just so that I can feel better.

              There's "good" voice and there's "bad" voice. I don't think anyone is saying "All" voice should be less, just "bad" voice needs to go.

              there are certain topics that we 'cant talk' about without being called racist a homophone etc

              I find that I really depends who you talk to and how you word it. If you are not careful, it can be easily misinterpreted.

              the topic suicide is the defense used to push PC agendas but where is the evidence this will help? From what ive read fiancial stress is the biggest risk factor which i hear no one ever talk about.. .

              So if its not the #1 reason, it doesn't matter?
              You don't hear it, therefore it doesn't exist?

              As for evidence. Do you really not believe suicide amongst minors (and even adults) is real (not due to finance related)? Would you like me to show you my high school friends wrist? I can confirm she had no mortgage, loans etc. With the whole toxic social media, likes and followers trend, it can only get worse.

              • Trying2SaveABuck on 07/11/2021 - 20:21
                +1

                @Ughhh: My question is who determines what 'abuse' is? You? the media? the government?

                I like Sam Newman but the outrage community hate him - for me he has never said anything that wasnt on some level true but i acknowledge other people might not agree with my opinion. - in a world where the mob/government/media determine what can and cant be said you lose all freedom.

                My issue is who determines what is right and wrong?

                Right now we got a truck load of anti vax protesting? me telling them they should get vaccinated might 'offend them' or be considered abusive if i call them an idiot for not letting there children get vaccinated - is that abuse? is that wrong? - should i be locked up or fined for that?

                Is telling a flat earther the earth is round offensive?

                Is speaking against the government abusive?

                You need to think beyond you're narrow point of view and look at the wider implications - i have always supported free speech and without i we might has well live in a dictatorship

                the other MAJOR issue is 'offence' is not tangible, people often get offended by facts like the facts - telling people facts that offends them should that be not allowed?

                • Ughhh on 07/11/2021 - 21:21
                  +1

                  @Trying2SaveABuck:

                  My question is who determines what 'abuse' is? You? the media? the government?

                  Did you feel 'abused' when someone called you a racial slur/said something racist towards you or made fat jokes about you?

                  The law has defined what abuse is

                  Back in the day, spanking your kid or a teacher spanking a student was not considered abuse, but standards change, and so it should.

                  I won't comment on Sam Newman as I havent been following that.

                  My issue is who determines what is right and wrong?

                  I think the bigger issue is that, how is this is a question. Is it wrong or right for me to call you a fatty/idiot/whatever mean unnecessary mean words? Would you allow me and everyone to exercise my 'voice' by referring you to that from now on?

                  if i call them an idiot

                  Well you're name calling. Perhaps you can put your argument forward without resulting to insults and name calling so that its not abusive?

                  should i be locked up or fined for that?

                  Death sentence perhaps.

                  Is telling a flat earther the earth is round improper, cruel, violent and an action to gain some kind of self benefit?

                  Perhaps you should have a look at the definition of abuse and the above link to have a better understanding at what point it becomes 'abuse', as you appear confused.

                  • Trying2SaveABuck on 07/11/2021 - 21:55
                    +1

                    @Ughhh: Bottom line is no one can be trusted with that kind of power and anyone that could wouldnt want it becuz it is dangerous.

                    Just read a history book or two

                    • Ughhh on 07/11/2021 - 21:56
                      +1

                      @Trying2SaveABuck: Not sure If you're intentionally being rude or you really have no self awareness of how you're coming off.
                      Have a good night

                • screensaver on 07/11/2021 - 23:25

                  @Trying2SaveABuck: whats facts to you is not necessarilly facts. It is a fact that I grew my bust size with self hypnosis, but no one believes me. (I do not wish to get into discussion)

            • screensaver on 07/11/2021 - 18:24
              +1

              @Trying2SaveABuck: why does homosexulality need to have an opinion about. It exists and they are entitled to peace and privacy, withoot being talked about and without peoples opinions needing to be broadcast.They need dignity.

              • Trying2SaveABuck on 07/11/2021 - 20:18

                @screensaver: I agree vice versa for religions and other groups?

                Free speech is 'free for all' getting rid of it means non of us are free

                Countries like Qatar women 'do not' have free speech becuz it is deemed 'offensive' to speak against men is that good?

                The world is a bigger place then Australia and there is a reason freedom needs to be for all - i agree it isnt perfect but it is better then the alternative just look at history and how not letting people have a voice can result in wide spread oppression

                • [Deactivated] on 07/11/2021 - 22:07
                  +1

                  @Trying2SaveABuck: Those who support censorship powers are unwittingly enabling turnkey tyranny.

                  Governments might be lovely today, but the next governments might not be so lovely, and they might just have a different view of what's offensive, but it'll be too late then.

  • morse on 07/11/2021 - 07:26

    This legislation doesn’t add anything that doesn’t already exist. No one is making Christian doctors provide euthanasia or abortions in Australia. Religious organisations already include clauses regarding a person’s understanding of their faith when hiring.

    I can’t see how this legislation would even help Folau, as it was about the conduct that he agreed to in his contract with a non religious organisation, surely this legislation can’t allow religious employees to make whatever public statements they like?

    • deme on 07/11/2021 - 13:31

      This legislation doesn’t add anything that doesn’t already exist.

      Then there is absolutely no need for it. No need to waste anytime with this proposal.

      • morse on 09/11/2021 - 04:16

        Yep - it’s a publicity stunt that is dividing people unnecessarily.

  • deme on 07/11/2021 - 13:35

    Someone said Church are taxed like everyone else it's the charity that isn't.

    This is a lie

    The entire Church is registered as a charity for "advancing religion".

  • negger on 07/11/2021 - 16:17

    What I don't understand is why religious schools force all students to partake in BS. Even worse is that some of them get tax payer funds. Surely, it is time to repeal that?

    I personally do not have a problem with allowing doctors and the like to have a choice on what they do when it comes to elective procedures.

    • ozhunter on 07/11/2021 - 16:41
      +2

      What I don't understand is why religious schools force all students to partake in BS.

      Why do you think parents send their kids to religious schools?

      Even worse is that some of them get tax payer funds. Surely, it is time to repeal that?

      Why?

      • screensaver on 07/11/2021 - 17:19

        because tax payer funds need to be accounted for, where they actually go, what they are spent on. As the church is a charity, they can keep all the profits

        • ozhunter on 07/11/2021 - 18:02
          +1

          They can still be accounted for…

          But kids still need an education and no reason why they shouldn't receive taxpayer funds like everyone else.

      • negger on 07/11/2021 - 19:38
        +1

        Why do you think parents send their kids to religious schools?

        Often because some of the best schools academically are religious schools as far as I understand.

        It may be fair if tax payer funds are available to all instead of a selective few and religious activities at school are optional/elective.

        • negger on 07/11/2021 - 19:47

          Education is a basic right. Religion, ideology etc are choices

        • Vomo on 07/11/2021 - 20:12
          +1

          Correct, religious schools are known to be better. I wonder why that is…

          • negger on 07/11/2021 - 21:07

            @Vomo: I would not say religious schools are better and it is likely not in the best interest of the children longer term.. Having said that enforcing discipline better , being private/face of the religion in some ways, paying parents etc could be reasons for them doing well in many cases

            • Vomo on 07/11/2021 - 21:18
              +2

              @negger: Yes I think it's the discipline. So government schools need to be more strict IMO. As a kid I knew you had to respect strict teachers.

        • ozhunter on 07/11/2021 - 21:31
          +1

          Seen here time and time again that private and public school are similar academically.

          It may be fair if tax payer funds are available to all instead of a selective few and religious activities at school are optional/elective.

          Would be fair if the government gave funding to all students equally. If parents want to contribute more to their children's education, then good for them.

    • Eeples on 09/11/2021 - 01:00

      Because parents want ethics taught to their kids even if it comes in a religious wrapper.

      • screensaver on 09/11/2021 - 07:25
        +1

        ethics these days should include human rights, equality and human dignity. I once went to an Alpha Course in a church and all a young person could talk about was how gay was bad.

      • ozhunter on 09/11/2021 - 13:06

        Then you'd think there would be more secular non-government schools.

    • C Scott on 09/11/2021 - 13:45

      I went to a normal school. In Religious education during years 7-9 a few of the students used to see who could make the religious teacher cry the most. I saw incidents of swaztikas drawn on her desk and inverted crosses on her books she used to have a small room she'd go and cry in on a weekly basis it's odd how forcing someone to do a class they don't want to do has such an effect on people towards the end most students just realised you could get out of religious classes by claiming your a jw and you'd get a free pass from indoctrination and most just used this time to do homework or read a book. From Years 10 onwards religion was an option and the amount of pupils doing it was extremely low.

      • dizzle on 09/11/2021 - 14:25
        +1

        My school did Religious Education pretty well. For the first 3 years they spent seperate semesters on Christianity, Islam, Judeism, Buddism and Hinduism. The remaining semesters covered others such as Paganism, Shinto, Taoism, Sikhism.

        Rather than indoctrination, it was about understanding other people. Not bad for a school that still had compulsary church services several times a year.

  • Dowhatuwant on 08/11/2021 - 16:15

    Yes.

  • tomokaicho on 08/11/2021 - 21:54
    +3

    Everyone should have the right to use legal speech and not be fired, regardless of whether they find justification in holy books or not. Employers should not be trolling social media posts. The way forward is to simply ban employers from the personal lives of their employees.

    • screensaver on 09/11/2021 - 18:39

      well on this case Folau was sticking his nose in others personal lives

  • meowbert on 09/11/2021 - 18:54

    I like the bill because I am ethically opposed to homosexuality.

    • screensaver on 09/11/2021 - 19:07

      well I am sure they are used to that by now. But gay marriage is now legal, as it should be. So Folau and his cronies are now redundant lol

    • screensaver on 11/11/2021 - 22:57

      that says more about you then it does about them

  • [Deactivated] on 18/11/2021 - 14:08
    +1

    At least listen before you down vote https://youtube.com/watch?v=qnvNDUpJ5sA

  • MementoMori on 19/11/2021 - 05:23
    +1

    "Folaus who would like gays to die"

    Citation needed

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join