Discussion in 'Parramatta Eels' started by Gronk, Dec 10, 2018.
Protected speech is now gay hate. It's like something from 1984.
What is the gay hate bill that Morrison is introducing into Parliament?
The one that allows people to discriminate against gay people, i would have thought
I'm sure you can Google it just as easily as anyone one else, Hollywood Gutful.
Its even got discrimination in the name
I googled gay hate bill and didn't come up with anything...
Well this has been a productive discussion, trolly mctrollface
Religious discrimination bill: what will Australians be allowed to say and do if it passes?
The government’s explanatory memo outlines how the bill’s far-reaching effects will change public life dramatically – in medical services, schools, offices and hospitals
The second draft religious discrimination bill will have wide-ranging effects on many areas of public life including access to medical services, schooling, employment, social media, aged care, hospitals and even some commercial services.
As well as an explainer about the bill’s provisions, we have collected examples from the government’s explanatory memorandum (EM) and stakeholders about what people would be allowed to say or do if the bill passes.
Statements of religious belief
Protection received: statements of religious belief will not be found to breach other federal, state and territory discrimination laws.
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
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)
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)
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)
A student with disability may be told by a teacher their disability is a trial imposed by God (PIAC)
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).
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.
Protection received: discrimination against a person on the basis of religious activity is unlawful.
Example: public evangelising/street-preaching – even where this is in contravention of council bylaws (EM, Just Equal).
Protection received: unless it is against the law to refuse treatment, health practitioners are allowed to conscientiously object to providing a health service and no professional rules can override that right.
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)
A Catholic nurse who refused to participate in abortion procedures (EM) or to provide the morning-after pill to a woman admitted to hospital after a sexual assault (Equality Australia)
A pharmacist refusing to provide the pill to women for contraceptive use (EM), or hormone treatment (Public Interest Advocacy Centre, LGBTI Health Alliance)
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)
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)
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).
Although the primary aim of the bill is to prohibit religious discrimination there are a range of exemptions that will allow religious discrimination to continue:
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
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)
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)
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)
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).
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).
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)
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).
Accommodation, camps and conference sites
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.
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).
The only thing Orwellian about this is your doublespeak.
I actually don't give a f**k about the bill. It won't remotely change my life.
I just find it funny that whiny bitches complain and exaggerate and call it a gay hate bill whilst at the same time arguing for something that discrimates against people with religious beliefs (also known as a religion hate bill).
There is no compassion or empathy on either side of the debate at the moment.
Are the all of the examples that don't have the (EM) at the end from other sources? If so the article has been set out in a very misleading fashion.
Best get a Twitter account then, and argue with the people saying that stuff.
I'm not on there myself but a Google search tells me that Mincing Minceful is available as a handle
Personally I give a f**k because it's an atrociously backwards, out of touch, and shitful bill. But I'm also not for a bill that allows discrimination the other way
Seems fair. And it should shut down the I-don't-feel-safe brigade from trying to control the rest of us.
I won't be doing that any time soon.
What aspects in particular don't you agree with?
The aspects that allow people to legally discriminate against other people, mostly.
Also the amount of influence on the bill as a whole from religious entities has no place in an ostensibly secular process.
I'm not religious, but if I was and I was forced to do something that was against my religious beliefs I'd feel pretty badly discriminated against.
Really? You reckon you'd feel discriminated against because you had to treat people with a basic level of respect and decency?
Would you have the same opinion of the bill if it allowed the same level of discrimination against brown folks just based on their race?
All or nothing. Loony religious types should be as open to discrimination as the people they want to discriminate against. Or, even better, we shouldn't pass any bills that allow discrimination in the first place.
I just don’t get how this will lead to a better version of our society. To me, this is a bill drafted by the majority who are tired of having to provide an inclusive society for the minority. They’re just f**king over it and want a law which allows them to officially give no f**ks.
What makes you think that you are welcome to be part of what you call “us” ?
When dissecting and debating a bill, hypotheticals need to be addressed and tested. How are any of the scenarios not possible under the draft bill ? The answer is that they are indeed possible and thats how amendments are sought. Not sure why you think that any part of the article is misleading, unless you can point out inaccuracies.
Separate names with a comma.