[Pants-of-dog]

Nonetheless they're basically the reason this bill now exists.

No.

The bill exists because Abrahamic schools want the right to fire or expel LGBTQ students and staff.

[colliric]

https://www.9news.com.au/national/relig ... 0374669b62

One house down one left to go.

[Pants-of-dog]

https://www.9news.com.au/national/religious-freedom-bill-passes-lower-house-parliament/aa17e40e-968c-4534-b682-ea0374669b62

One house down one left to go.

Can you give a good reason why religious people should be allowed to fire people for their sexual orientation?

[colliric]

Can you give a good reason why religious people should be allowed to fire people for their sexual orientation?

I agree with the Labor Party amendment that got up. They should not be expelled from school or fired from work if they were already hired before "coming out" or "knowing it now".

If a gay student comes out halfway through their education, or say in their final year, they should be allowed to finish up.

They should just be careful expressing their views at the workplace or in class, so as not to give people an excuse to look for a legal reason to expel or fire them. Just as religious individuals have to be careful whilst working for "pride supporting" corporations not to express their views in an upsetting or aggressive way to their fellow workers. Folau wasn't representing the organisation at the time so them firing him and destroying his career was illegal, and everyone with a brain knew that.

If Bruce Jenner is hired while he's Bruce but finds out he's really Caitlyn whilst doing his/her work, there's no reason to fire him/her, so long as they do not express that view while pretending to represent the organisation nor teach that view to their Catholic students. Nor give the organisation any other valid legal reason to fire them. If he expresses views online that are clearly independent of the organisation and its religious affiliation, there's no reason to fire him/her.

[Patrickov]

I am sorry, colliric, but after reading Folau's article on Wikipedia I think he was making comments with the knowledge that his achievements would make his comments get through to more people. At the end, I believe what is really a problem is that too many people abuse their influence and try to push their less-than-universally-acceptable personal views through it.

Even if they didn't intend to have their affiliations involved, we cannot expect all listeners do the same. As a result, he forced Rugby Australia to take a stand, which they did. Despite the later reversal, I think Rugby Australia merely did what they had to.

[colliric]

He was not representing Rugby Australia at the time, and everyone with a brain knew it.

You're arguing that listeners are not intelligent enough to understand the difference between a rugby player on the field and rugby player clearly expressing his personal religious views online.

Chris Pratt wasn't fired by Universal Pictures or Disney for attending Hillsong USA and openly expressing his religious views online as well. It's illegal in most western countries for a reason. Everyone knows he's simply working for them as an actor. No matter his celebrity influence.

Every celebrity does that. Tom Cruise has been pushing Scientology(also an anti-LGBT religion) publically for decades. He's never been fired.

[pugsville]

I agree with the Labor Party amendment that got up. They should not be expelled from school or fired from work if they were already hired before "coming out" or "knowing it now".

If a gay student comes out halfway through their education, or say in their final year, they should be allowed to finish up.

They should just be careful expressing their views at the workplace or in class, so as not to give people an excuse to look for a legal reason to expel or fire them. Just as religious individuals have to be careful whilst working for "pride supporting" corporations not to express their views in an upsetting or aggressive way to their fellow workers. Folau wasn't representing the organisation at the time so them firing him and destroying his career was illegal, and everyone with a brain knew that.

If Bruce Jenner is hired while he's Bruce but finds out he's really Caitlyn whilst doing his/her work, there's no reason to fire him/her, so long as they do not express that view while pretending to represent the organisation nor teach that view to their Catholic students. Nor give the organisation any other valid legal reason to fire them. If he expresses views online that are clearly independent of the organisation and its religious affiliation, there's no reason to fire him/her.

Why should a government funded school be allowed to teach against the declared values of our society and restrict the freedom of anyone sexual identity or beliefs.

Why do religious people get special privileges?

[colliric]

Why should a government funded school be allowed to teach against the declared values of our society and restrict the freedom of anyone sexual identity or beliefs.

Why do religious people get special privileges?

The government funds private schools simply to help cut costs down to help the secondary private system be a viable option for people so as to relieve some stress from the overstretched public school system.

It's not a government school. The government has CHOOSEN to send them some financial support in order to support the dual public-private system. Same as in healthcare and other areas. So your point is silly, you clearly don't understand why they actually send support money to private schools.

If you have a problem with that take it up with your political party, since they all mostly agree with it, including the Greens too.

"Helps the public school system to thrive having a healthy private sector taking a large chunk of students away"

[Pants-of-dog]

@colliric

I asked you for a good reason why Christians should be allowed to discriminate.

You did not provide a good reason. Instead, you provided your opinion as to when Christians should be allowed to discriminate.

I will assume that you are unable to provide a good reason for this discrimination.

[colliric]

You framed the question within the context of government funding, as in you were suggesting it be removed if they don't conform. Which was a silly way of framing the question since the government funding is not actually conditional on the School's exact religious views or opinions. The government has their own purpose for proving private schools with funding, and they will continue to provide such funding with no significant conditions other than the school follows the general state educational curriculum. Because the government views the private system as helping them save money on public education costs. Parents who can afford to pay to use the private system should do so, as the public school system is always overstretched same as Medicare.

Also "declared values of society" is an absolutist statement when we in fact live in a living democracy where the "declared values of society"(or Political Correctness as most people call it) changes from generation to generation. The law is alive and not set in stone. It changes.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes!

Don't you understand this is actually already happening and the law will simply reflect current reality as is usually the case with such bills? It's not me that's arguing for changes, it's you. The government doesn't give a crap about school's personal religious views, so long as the school is following the state curriculum and providing general educational benifits to society. Newsflash, religious schools do not have "anti-gay" indoctrination classes, they are NOT part of the curriculum.

[Pants-of-dog]

You framed the question within the context of government funding,

No. You are confusing me with @pugsville .

Answer the question:

Can you give a good reason why religious people should be allowed to fire people for their sexual orientation?

[colliric]

No. You are confusing me with @pugsville .

Answer the question:

Can you give a good reason why religious people should be allowed to fire people for their sexual orientation?

Lol, yes I was sorry. I apologize for mistaking you and him.

As I said I agreed with the Labor Party's amendment. If a person subsequently comes out as gay or trans, they should be allowed to retain employment, if they follow the same unspoken rules Christians do when they go to work for any corporation that has a publically stated pro-LGBT position. Keep it to yourself at work for the sake of a peaceful work environment, don't for example put a massive LGBT flag above your work desk or start impromptu teaching the Catholic kids about how awesome Mardi Gras are. Cause trouble, they'll find some way to fire you legally.

It's at the hiring phase they should be allowed to try and favour hiring employees that believe in or trend toward agreeing with their religious beliefs. They should be allowed to go after new employees who share the school's religious values.

If the employee has issues of identity later on, there's not much you can do. Shit happens.

[Pants-of-dog]

@colliric

Yes, you already said that and I already told you that your opinions about when Christians should be allowed to discriminate is not an answer to the question.

Why should they be allowed to discriminate at all?

[colliric]

@colliric
Why should they be allowed to discriminate at all?

If it's a Catholic school, they have global church rules they are under obligation to follow and the parents have indicated they want their kids to be raised in a Catholic environment.

Why are you delibrately trying to get a job at a Catholic or other type of Christian school and at the same time want to be "Out and proud!"?

Why are you trying to force a Catholic school to bend to your personal will when you know the Roman Catholic Church has an anti-LGBT stance based upon their interpretation of their religious scriptures?

Why don't you go find a job teaching in PUBLIC SCHOOL or in an LGBT community affiliated educational organisation? They're more likely to hire you anyway!

Or why not just keep your sexual orientation to yourself in your Private Life.

This wouldn't be a significant issue if the LGBT community wasn't so completely totally obsessed with being "out and proud". Christians often go to work for major corporations that also support the LGBT community and they usually have no issue since they keep their views at home. Even Israel Folau kept his views to his social media account and clearly was not representing the organisation (he's had issues because they were idiots).

Some members of the LGBT community are completely and totally obsessed with being "out and proud" and wanting everyone else they work with and all the kids to bow to the narcissism. If you oppose it, you get accused of discrimination for absolutely NO valid reason.

Don't mention your sexual orientation in the interviews you idiots, don't bring your gay partner to work and don't force the kids to learn your sexual orientation and stupid pronouns. Keep it to yourself and you get to keep the job. Take a leaf out of the Christians playbook when they go to work at Walmart and McDonalds (both of which financially support the LGBT community).

[Pants-of-dog]

If it's a Catholic school, they have global church rules they are under obligation to follow and the parents have indicated they want their kids to be raised in a Catholic environment.

So you think that religious belief justifies discrimination.

Tell me, if I have a deeply held religious belief that vaccination is mandatory, should I therefore be allowed to fire unvaccinated people? Or Jews? Or black people?

Why are you delibrately trying to get a job at a Catholic or other type of Christian school and at the same time want to be "Out and proud!"?

Why are you trying to force a Catholic school to bend to your personal will when you know the Roman Catholic Church has an anti-LGBT stance based upon their interpretation of their religious scriptures?

Why don't you go find a job teaching in PUBLIC SCHOOL or in an LGBT community affiliated educational organisation? They're more likely to hire you anyway!

Or why not just keep your sexual orientation to yourself in your Private Life.

Because it is illegal and immoral to discriminate against LGBTQ people.

This wouldn't be a significant issue if the LGBT community wasn't so completely totally obsessed with being "out and proud". Christians often go to work for major corporations that also support the LGBT community and they usually have no issue since they keep their views at home. Even Israel Folau kept his views to his social media account and clearly was not representing the organisation (he's had issues because they were idiots).

Some members of the LGBT community are completely and totally obsessed with being "out and proud" and wanting everyone else they work with and all the kids to bow to the narcissism. If you oppose it, you get accused of discrimination for absolutely NO valid reason.

Don't mention your sexual orientation in the interviews you idiots, don't bring your gay partner to work and don't force the kids to learn your sexual orientation and stupid pronouns. Keep it to yourself and you get to keep the job. Take a leaf out of the Christians playbook when they go to work at Walmart and McDonalds (both of which financially support the LGBT community).

No.

This is about Christians wanting to be allowed to fire people because of bigotry.

This is just a poor attempt at blaming the person being fired. You are arguing that discrimination is justified if LGBTQ people are honest with others about themselves.

In short, you have not provided a good reason for allowing discrimination. Religious belief is not a good reason, nor is the honesty of those targeted by discrimination.

[Rancid]

I'm for protecting freedom of religion, but at least in America, we go too far with so called protections. For example, religious organizations should have to pay taxes. Especially when they engage in political campaigning. Many congregations, especially those mega churches tell their members how to vote.

[XogGyux]

I'm for protecting freedom of religion, but at least in America, we go too far with so called protections. For example, religious organizations should have to pay taxes. Especially when they engage in political campaigning. Many congregations, especially those mega churches tell their members how to vote.

Agreed. They run it as a business, they should pay business taxes.

No.

This is about Christians wanting to be allowed to fire people because of bigotry.

Honestly, I think we should let them show their true colors and stand on the side.

[ThirdTerm]

Then why should anyone be stopped form discriminating the basis on religion?

Why should they get special rights denied to anyone else?'

What is the actual principle at work here?

The anti-discrimination bill was put on ice by the Morrison government after the Attorney-General argued that new protections for transgender students at religious schools risked increasing the grounds for discrimination against other students. It is a leftist initiative from Labor and the Greens that is not fully supported by the Coalition government and the general public. It seemed certain the government would not have the numbers to push its religious discrimination legislation through the Senate. The Coalition is trailing Labor by 56 per cent to 44 per cent on the two-party preferred vote in a new poll. A new Labor government may be able to pass the bill but Australia has a long way to go.

Scott Morrison is on the brink of breaking a key election promise after putting his religious discrimination package on ice amid a fresh dispute over protections for transgender students.

The Morrison government joined Labor and the Greens in agreeing not to debate the package in the Senate on Thursday, following a marathon overnight sitting in the lower house.

The decision came as Attorney-General Michaelia Cash warned new protections for transgender students at religious schools - which passed the lower house against the government's will - risked increasing the grounds for discrimination against other students.

Senator Cash accused Labor and crossbencher Rebekha Sharkie of rushing the amendment, prompting angry response from both parties.

The Coalition also risked more rebellion if it had put the amendment up for debate on Thursday, with NSW Senator Andrew Bragg confirming to The Canberra Times that he would have crossed the floor.

https://www.portstephensexaminer.com.au ... ort/?cs=12

[Rancid]

Honestly, I think we should let them show their true colors and stand on the side.

This is the contradiction a lot of these morons don't see though.

They bitch and moan about protected classes in general (age, sex, etc.), but then want religion to be a protected class. This is another example of being an entitled bitch.

Again, I'm ok with religion being a protect class in the same way age, sex, race, sexual orientation is protected. However, they need understand that everything cuts both ways.

[XogGyux]

This is the contradiction a lot of these morons don't see though.

They bitch and moan about protected classes in general (age, sex, etc.), but then want religion to be a protected class. This is another example of being an entitled bitch.

Again, I'm ok with religion being a protect class in the same way age, sex, race, sexual orientation is protected. However, they need understand that everything cuts both ways.

That is what I am saying. Perhaps what we need is for a handful of stores and restaurants to deny service "well you are wearing a cross in your neck" or "We saw you entering a church on Sunday". "We are satanist, we do not approve of your life choices and our religion teaches us you are evil, I don't personally have an issue with you per se, but my religion is very strict, so skedaddle out of my restaurant/shop".
To be totally honest. If I was on that situation, I don't think I would want to work from an employer that discriminates against my sexual orientation, nor would I want to eat a cake that was made by a homophobic asshole. But I understand, especially for employment, that sometimes there are not many options.
I am just suggesting that perhaps these people are due for a little bit of their own bitter medicine.