[colliric]

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/religious-discrimination-bill-ensures-freedom-for-australians-of-faith/video/e8e8b4b434d319b0965c0343b1f4771a

Of course Australian mostly assumed they already had this right, since Yankees and Canadians have had it from the beginning (so surely we must too!), but then the woke cancel culture social justice warriors showed up and rudely told Israel Folau he didn't actually legally have this right and "We're firing you for being Christian and actually expressing your views!". And of course we did essentially have this right since until the Millenial SJW idiots showed up most Australians respected it was a "traditional right of being Australian".

Now rich celebrity asshat Thorpie is being wheeled out to have a sook that us Aussies now get Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech locked into law. Oh it's "such a backwards step" that we're finally getting the same legal rights Americans and Canadians have had since the 18th and 19th Centuries respectively.

[pugsville]

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/religious-discrimination-bill-ensures-freedom-for-australians-of-faith/video/e8e8b4b434d319b0965c0343b1f4771a

Of course Australian mostly assumed they already had this right, since Yankees and Canadians have had it from the beginning (so surely we must too!), but then the woke cancel culture social justice warriors showed up and rudely told Israel Folau he didn't actually legally have this right and "We're firing you for being Christian and actually expressing your views!". And of course we did essentially have this right since until the Millenial SJW idiots showed up most Australians respected it was a "traditional right of being Australian".

Now rich celebrity asshat Thorpie is being wheeled out to have a sook that us Aussies now get Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech locked into law. Oh it's "such a backwards step" that we're finally getting the same legal rights Americans and Canadians have had since the 18th and 19th Centuries respectively.

How is it freedom to be discriminated for your personal beliefs an d sexuality?

To have educational access and employment having to meet religious dogma requirement in any way be described as freedom.

It's empowering certain groups to allowed to impose their views on others, to give religious organizations greater rights tio oppose their views ion other people.

[Potemkin]

So the guards have allowed you extra privileges for good behaviour? That’s nice.

[colliric]

How is it freedom to be discriminated for your personal beliefs an d sexuality?

We're three centuries behind the United States and a century and half behind Canada in enshrining freedom of religion legally(constitutionally, they created a seperate bill in 1980s to clarify it). This law just brings us in line with our allied nations. Australia is literally one of the last western countries in the world to legalise Freedom Of Religion.

We wouldn't even be having this debate if our laws weren't so far behind the rest of the western world. We don't even have a bill of rights.

Why are you so fear mongering? Canada and most other western nations already have these laws(or similar, I'm not clear on the exact details of their "Freedom of Religion" laws) and in modern times it hasn't in any measurable negative way impacted the LGBT community. They're protected by the already existing discrimination legislation and it's likely nothing meaningful will actually change, except Christians will finally be able to sue people that discriminate against them.

[Igor Antunov]

This is indeed one of the more hilarious happenings in local politics in recent years. Thanks for bringing attention to this circus. The same neolibturds that scream bloody murder when you disrespect mosques being built are demanding open season on Christians.

Pitiful little rats. Hope they squirm hard over this new law.

[Pants-of-dog]

What our Antipodean colleagues are failing to mention is that this was born out of a conflict where a school tried to exclude LGBTQ kids and people were unafraid to tell the school that this was bigotry.

So they made a law saying that religious bigotry is fine.

[colliric]

What our Antipodean colleagues are failing to mention is that this was born out of a conflict where a school tried to exclude LGBTQ kids and people were unafraid to tell the school that this was bigotry.

So they made a law saying that religious bigotry is fine.

Actually no, every Australian knows it was the Israel Folau incident with the NRL. In almost every other western country, that would have been completely illegal under their freedom of religion laws and no company would have dared do it. Especially the US.

Do some research:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Folau

Rugby Australia eventually payed up, but his Rugby career was already destroyed and that was the whole point of them firing him. Destroy his career for preaching his religion, pay the inevitable legal bills later.

Most Australians would have no hope in getting compensation. The situation simply isn't even ment to happen in western society BUT CANCEL CULTURE NUTS WILL BE NUTS. Folau was lucky he was wealthy enough and had extra financial support.

Even Pugsville knows it was the Israel Folau incident. Every Australian knows what happened to him is meant to be completely illegal in western society.

Nice try though mate.

[Pants-of-dog]

Actually no, every Australian knows it was the Israel Folau incident with the NRL. In almost every other western country, that would have been completely illegal under their freedom of religion laws and no company would have dared do it. Especially the US.

Do some research:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Folau

Rugby Australia eventually payed up, but his Rugby career was already destroyed and that was the whole point of them firing him. Destroy his career for preaching his religion, pay the inevitable legal bills later.

Most Australians would have no hope in getting compensation. The situation simply isn't even ment to happen in western society BUT CANCEL CULTURE NUTS WILL BE NUTS. Folau was lucky he was wealthy enough and had extra financial support.

Even Pugsville knows it was the Israel Folau incident. Every Australian knows what happened to him is meant to be completely illegal in western society.

Nice try though mate.

No. This random rugby player is unimportant and had nothing to do with the current law.

But in both cases, people want a legal right to promote or enact bigotry against LGBTQ people and want to use religion as an excuse.

[colliric]

No. This random rugby player is unimportant and had nothing to do with the current law.

But in both cases, people want a legal right to promote or enact bigotry against LGBTQ people and want to use religion as an excuse.

It's got nothing to do with bigotry or enacting this or that. You already have Freedom of Religion laws, we don't.

A bit rich for you to be commenting about it, since your country already has Freedom of Religion laws.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's got nothing to do with bigotry or enacting this or that. You already have Freedom of Religion laws, we don't.

Since this law was written as a direct response to legal challenges to said bigotry, your claim is incorrect.

A bit rich for you to be commenting about it, since your country already has Freedom of Religion laws.

If I recall correctly, you incorrectly believe that I live in the USA.

[Rich]

Oh it's "such a backwards step" that we're finally getting the same legal rights Americans and Canadians have had since the 18th and 19th Centuries respectively.

This is a lie i see it repeated over and over again. Most Americans are retarded and lack the most basic reading comprehension skills.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No individual right to free speech. Abolitionist literature was banned in some states. The right to bear arms on the other hand was considered a pre existing and irrevocable right. Altougth obviously slaves were not considered to be members of the people.

[colliric]

This is a lie i see it repeated over and over again. Most Americans are retarded and lack the most basic reading comprehension skills

The law has been interpreted by many judges as protecting individuals right to freedom of speech. You might disagree, but that's how your Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the First amendment. They also interpret "Congress" as referring to the entire US Government.

No individual right to free speech. Abolitionist literature was banned in some states. The right to bear arms on the other hand was considered a pre existing and irrevocable right. Altougth obviously slaves were not considered to be members of the people.

Individuals right to free speech in the United States has been upheld by the US Supreme Court countless times.

[Rich]

@colliric Yes precisely what I'm saying. The individual right to free speech was not only not recognised by the Founders but actively opposed by them. The individual right to free speech in the US did not exist in the eighteenth century, but was invented later by the Supreme Court.

[late]

The right to bear arms on the other hand was considered a pre-existing and irrevocable right.

The motivating factors were primarily money, and a fear of standing armies.

[pugsville]

We're three centuries behind the United States and a century and half behind Canada in enshrining freedom of religion legally(constitutionally, they created a seperate bill in 1980s to clarify it). This law just brings us in line with our allied nations. Australia is literally one of the last western countries in the world to legalise Freedom Of Religion.

We wouldn't even be having this debate if our laws weren't so far behind the rest of the western world. We don't even have a bill of rights.

Why are you so fear mongering? Canada and most other western nations already have these laws(or similar, I'm not clear on the exact details of their "Freedom of Religion" laws) and in modern times it hasn't in any measurable negative way impacted the LGBT community. They're protected by the already existing discrimination legislation and it's likely nothing meaningful will actually change, except Christians will finally be able to sue people that discriminate against them.

Have you been following this bill or not?

It'ss doing the very opposite of what you claim, It well allow religious discrimination. Including against Christians.

It;s NOT freedom of religion. It's removal of freedoms of religion from students and employees. It;s about the establishing right of religious to discriminate, sack employees that do';t meet religious dogma, expel students not meeting dogma requirements.

[pugsville]

Actually no, every Australian knows it was the Israel Folau incident with the NRL. In almost every other western country, that would have been completely illegal under their freedom of religion laws and no company would have dared do it. Especially the US.

Do some research:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Folau

Rugby Australia eventually payed up, but his Rugby career was already destroyed and that was the whole point of them firing him. Destroy his career for preaching his religion, pay the inevitable legal bills later.

Most Australians would have no hope in getting compensation. The situation simply isn't even ment to happen in western society BUT CANCEL CULTURE NUTS WILL BE NUTS. Folau was lucky he was wealthy enough and had extra financial support.

Even Pugsville knows it was the Israel Folau incident. Every Australian knows what happened to him is meant to be completely illegal in western society.

Nice try though mate.

]

Rugby Australia could enact a statement of belief and define themselves as religious organization, and carry on.

[colliric]

Rugby Australia could enact a statement of belief and define themselves as religious organization, and carry on.

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

[pugsville]

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

Bill bill enables religious organization to censor, control and dictate employee lives, enabled religious people grater rights than others.

How is it free or reasonable described as freedom?

Employee as Religious institution will be denied freedom of religion.

[colliric]

Religious institutions should be free to favour employees of their own faith. I mean that's why most kids get sent to "Catholic School" the parents expect them to receive a "Catholic education". It's a CATHOLIC school.

And besides like most new laws this bill simply reflects what is mostly already happening in practice and has happened since Federation. The religious schools usually just come up with an excuse to hire the candidates they want to anyway as they can't be sued if they simply don't indicate "it's because we don't like you" or "you don't match our religious identity".

What the gay community is currently complaining about is the Australian Government attempting to uphold Australian constitutional tradition. They're like the Democrats when they complained when the Republican Party got back in and legalised 8 years as being the maximum "because it is American tradition, and you callously broke it, not us".

[pugsville]

Religious institutions should be free to favour employees of their own faith. I mean that's why most kids get sent to "Catholic School" the parents expect them to receive a "Catholic education". It's a CATHOLIC school.

And besides like most new laws this bill simply reflects what is mostly already happening in practice and has happened since Federation. The religious schools usually just come up with an excuse to hire the candidates they want to anyway as they can't be sued if they simply don't indicate "it's because we don't like you" or "you don't match our religious identity".

What the gay community is currently complaining about is the Australian Government attempting to uphold Australian constitutional tradition. They're like the Democrats when they complained when the Republican Party got back in and legalised 8 years as being the maximum "because it is American tradition, and you callously broke it, not us".

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?