A Christian may say that unrepentant sinners will go to hell, an example cited in the EM which mirrors the facts of Israel Folau’s case
Folau would still fail based on the following caveats
"statements must be made in good faith; not be malicious or harass, vilify or incite hatred against a person or group; not advocate for the commission of a serious criminal offence."
A doctor may tell a transgender patient of their religious belief that God made men and women in his image and that gender is therefore binary (EM)
Gender is f**king binary. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with science. Why should people be forced to pretend otherwise? I'll be respectful to someone that identifies as Ze, but sharing my view that gender is binary in a respectful manner is not discrimination. Just as them sharing their views in a respectful manner isn't discrimination against me.
A single mother who, when dropping her child off at daycare, may be told by a worker that she is sinful for denying her child a father (Public Interest Advocacy Centre)
This example is f**king stupid. Assuming an employee was stupid enough to say this and ruin their employers business, the single mother would not be discriminating against them if they said "get f**ked, I am taking my kid elsewhere"
A woman may be told by a manager outside work that women should submit to their husbands or that women should not be employed outside the home (PIAC)
I doubt it. Sounds like a pretty malicious thing to say.
A student with disability may be told by a teacher their disability is a trial imposed by God (PIAC)
At non-religious school? Unlikely.
A person of a minority faith may be told by a retail assistant from another religion that they are a “heathen destined for eternal damnation” (PIAC).
I have never in 40 years of my existence ever discussed religion with a f**king retail assistant. This seems like a bullshit example. If it did happen, I would argue that it is malicious and designed to incite hatred.
A Catholic doctor refusing to provide contraception to all patients (EM) or to prescribe hormone treatment for gender transition (Equality Australia, Just Equal, LGBTI
Health Alliance)
Pretty easy to ask for one that will.
A Catholic nurse who refused to participate in abortion procedures (EM)
Shit example. That would be sorted out amongst the hospital. A patient would turn up and be treated by someone just as they are now.
or to provide the morning-after pill to a woman admitted to hospital after a sexual assault (Equality Australia)
Doctor: "I wont prescribe you a pill but I will get another doctor that will."
Patient: "That's discrimination!".
A pharmacist refusing to provide the pill to women for contraceptive use (EM), or hormone treatment (Public Interest Advocacy Centre, LGBTI Health Alliance)
I don't imagine too many pharmacists would risk jeopardising their business in such a way but if they are stupid enough to do so then it is pretty f**ken easy to go to another pharmacy.
A doctor could refuse to prescribe post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) within the required 72-hour window to a patient whose condom broke during a sexual encounter on the basis of religious beliefs that forbid sexual activity outside of marriage (Equality Australia)
What a crock of shit. We are all going to become pregnant now? Please. Consider this rationally. A hospital would work out which Drs they have on board and ensure that they have coverage should someone need a super critical, super emergency PEP (within 3 f**king days).
A psychiatrist could say to a woman with depression that “she should be looking forward to the kingdom of heaven”. Under the proposed laws, the psychiatrist could challenge their deregistration as religious discrimination, while the patient could have her disability discrimination complaint refused (Equality Australia)
I'm struggling to see the problem here. Is the suggestion that by saying such a thing, she is encouraging her to commit suicide? Weird. If that is the inference then there are already protections against psychiatrists encouraging suicide.
A law passed by a state parliament that banned the promotion of programs that seek to “convert” LGBTIQ people could be overridden by the federal attorney general as an infringement on “statements of belief” (Just Equal).
Could be, but would it be? I don't think so.
Religious hospitals, aged care providers or accommodation providers such as retirement villages may discriminate against their staff on the basis of religion both in terms of hiring and to set codes of conduct requiring them to act in accordance with that faith at work
I'm not convinced that many employers will push this too far for fear of being arse f**ked by a large portion of the population
But in practical terms, in the unlikely event that it does happen, how does that impact a potential employee?
Either they miss out on a job because they aren't religious enough, they have to act more religious while at work or they can choose to apply for a completely different job.
I don't see that as discrimination, I see that as someone potentially being a poor fit for an organisation and an employer.
There are many jobs that I will never get because of who I am.
A religiously affiliated business may require senior leaders to hold or engage in a particular religious belief or activity where that is an inherent requirement of those positions (EM)
They don't want a satan worshipper on their Board? Fancy that!
An Anglican public benevolent institution could require its employees, including volunteer workers, to uphold and act consistently with Anglican doctrines and teachings at work (EM)
What does that mean in real terms and where exactly is the discrimination?
Domestic duties – a person hiring a live-in nanny or in-home carer services may require that they be of the same religious belief or activity as that person (EM)
I don't have a problem with this. If I am religious and inviting someone into my home to perform such a critical task where they effectively become part of the family it is reasonable for someone to be able to make that choice.
An employer can ask a prospective employee whether they observe any holy days during which they can’t work to determine if they can fulfil the inherent requirements of the work (EM).
Would it really happen that way? In 99.99999% of cases it wil be a simple question - Can you work the hours?
This seems to be implying that someone should be compelled to hire a person who can't fulfill the requirements of the job? Thats f**ken daft.
Most of these examples have been f**ken stupid but this takes it to a new level.
An office worker could declare on social media that a fellow employee is in a wheelchair because they are sinful and urge them to attend a faith healer. The workplace inclusion policy would be overridden by such a “statement of belief” and any action taken against the offender could be appealed to the Human Rights Commission as “religious discrimination” (Just Equal).
More scare tactics. That is a hateful and malicious statement that would be unlikely to get through.
Also, religion aside, a lot of companies have social media policies that prohibit you from saying much about your work place. The above comment would be a clear breach of that.
A Jewish school may require that its staff and students be Jewish and accordingly refuse to hire or admit someone because they were not Jewish (EM)
Why the f**ken f**k would a non jewish person want to go to jewish school? F**k me!
A student attends the same religious school through their primary and secondary education. At 16 they lose faith in the religion of the school and tell a teacher that they are now agnostic. The school would be able to expel, suspend or otherwise punish, for example, give detention to the student (PIAC).
I'd like to think that in virtually every case it would be worked out between the school, kid and parents in a respectful manner.
I just can't honestly see a what a school would have to gain by doing that.
Rule: religious camps and conference sites may discriminate against another person on the ground of religious belief or activity in the provision of accommodation.
This is an
exemption lobbied for by the Sydney Anglican church with reference to this example: Anglican Youthworks should be able to reject an application for the First Church of Satan to hold a black mass at one of its campsites.
Lets flip this for a minute. The First Church of Satan should be allowed to use the Sydney Anglican Church's campsite to perform a black mass?
F**k off.
There is also an exception for the provision of accommodation so that a homeowner seeking a tenant for their spare room may require that the tenant be of the same religious belief or activity as the homeowner (EM).
If I am applying to live in the home of someone who is deeply religious to the point where they would ask me that I am religious I am running a million f**king miles.
But, given that it is their house I don't begrudge their right to do so even if I think they are weird.
So at this point, you have to ask yourself what rights are actually being denied through enforcing such a rule?
