OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[strider]

Yeah ok, that's fine.

So we need to divert ambulances from religious hospitals? And again, what about regional practices?

I dont think religious hospitals do emergency do they?

And yeah, any public service needs to cover the public, including regional .... i get that regional is a more difficult proposition

 

[Bandwagon]

Thanks Bandy. Will go through this tonight.

It's fairly long winded, particularly as an introduction, but the first few pages of their response illustrates some of the main issues with the bill itself.

For mine the main one being, as I have indicated, that whilst it is a bill that seeks to address discrimination upon religious grounds ( for which I agree there is some need ) , it also is a bill that allows for more discrimination upon religious grounds, that is it prioritises religious rights over other rights.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I would have thought you would be aware of such things?

I mean enjoining the conversation advocating change without reference to, or knowledge of, the status quo, would seem to me a very poor grounding upon which to make assertions as to the need for change.

Perhaps I should refrain from such assumptions?

Absolutely. I don't need to know how much of a merkin I'm legally allowed to be because prosecution under the law is so far down the spectrum of consequences for me that I'm unconcerned about it. What I do know is that I need to be polite about many, many things in order to exist in my social and professional worlds, but one thing I don't need to be polite about (judging by the actions of my peers) is religion.

 

[Bazal]

I dont think religious hospitals do emergency do they?

And yeah, any public service needs to cover the public, including regional .... i get that regional is a more difficult proposition

I'm not sure. I think some do? Dunno about Sydney....I think the SAN does from memory?

But down here, Calvary hospital is "public" but owned by the Little Company of Mary and certainly has its' share of religious staff. So it's not out of the question anyway.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Ok I’ll bite. You’ve now grouped me as a bully. You definitely need to explain how you arrived at this conclusion.

I'm more talking about the secular community who enjoys the privilege of their ideology holding an honoured position in Western society. They are particularly hostile to the current populist backlash that seems to have followed the 2008 GFC.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

LMAO

Well if conditions such as homosexuality and gender dysmorphia are protected under the law, why not religion too?

 

[Gronk]

I dont think religious hospitals do emergency do they?

And yeah, any public service needs to cover the public, including regional .... i get that regional is a more difficult proposition

SANS in Wahroonga do. Owned by the Seventh Day Adventists. St Vincents in Darlinghurst is owned by the nuns. They have hospitals in Auburn and Parklea.

 

[Gronk]

Well if conditions such as homosexuality and gender dysmorphia are protected under the law, why not religion too?

Religion is protected.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/quick-guide/12091

 

[Bazal]

Well if conditions such as homosexuality and gender dysmorphia are protected under the law, why not religion too?

Yeah nah nah nah yeah

 

[Gary Gutful]

Just because something doesn't happen (which of course it doesn't, this is not some Utopian society because that doesn't exist) doesn't mean that a right to discriminate should be enshrined in law...Discrimination happens. What I'm arguing is that in no way is it the right thing to do to give discrimination legal protection

I am quite sympathetic to that point but just haven't seen any evidence to suggest that it is a big deal. I also haven't seen any evidence of people proposing anything as an alternative that isn't without its own discrimination.

Maybe Noise's report will help convince me otherwise.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Im not sure we are

Me either.

 

[Bazal]

I am quite sympathetic to that point but just haven't seen any evidence to suggest that it is a big deal. I also haven't seen any evidence of people proposing anything as an alternative that isn't without its own discrimination.

Maybe Noise's report will help convince me otherwise.

I think the thing you're overlooking is twofold.

Firstly, people are shit. In my experience, shit religious people can be even more shit than normal shit people, because they're convinced of their righteousness. So you're giving these people a gold ticket to be shit.

Secondly, lawyers are really, really shit. And laws, bills and acts have plenty of loopholes.

Completely different act, but would you say that by your understanding, you cannot sack someone for being pregnant under the law?

 

[Gary Gutful]

I think the thing you're overlooking is twofold.

Firstly, people are shit. In my experience, shit religious people can be even more shit than normal shit people, because they're convinced of their righteousness. So you're giving these people a gold ticket to be shit.

I despise shit religious people and wouldn't want them lauding something over me, but under these arrangements I don't think they would. I equally despise people from the left of politics who preach about unity and inclusiveness while practicing the exact opposite.

I don't see it as a gold ticket. I get the concerns that some people have but I think that they are overreaching when trying to highlight some of the injustices.

Secondly, lawyers are really, really shit. And laws, bills and acts have plenty of loopholes.

That's probably a better reason not to have it to be honest. That, and the fact that there really isn't a problem that needs fixing. I'd respond much better to this line of reasoning than the "its going to make life unfair for us non religious types" argument.

Completely different act, but would you say that by your understanding, you cannot sack someone for being pregnant under the law?

I have never been pregnant whilst employed, nor have I ever tried to sack someone who is pregnant so I'm not sure what the rules are on this. Can you sack someone for being pregnant?

 

[Bandwagon]

You can't sack someone for being pregnant.

But you could sack some one who is pregnant, for reasons that relate to their pregnancy.

 

[Gronk]

I'm more talking about the secular community who enjoys the privilege of their ideology holding an honoured position in Western society. They are particularly hostile to the current populist backlash that seems to have followed the 2008 GFC.

I see, so what about the below remark ? FYI I am not upset, but it does make me curious how your insecurities leach out from time to time. That’s ok we are all human.

Adults need to retain the right to choose their own values and not have the values of others foisted upon them. On the upside, Gronk, this will lead to big businesses (that sell goods and services to progressive rich white folk) hiring fewer religious employees. So your tribe will still keep winning.

 

[Bazal]

I despise shit religious people and wouldn't want them lauding something over me, but under these arrangements I don't think they would. I equally despise people from the left of politics who preach about unity and inclusiveness while practicing the exact opposite.

I don't see it as a gold ticket. I get the concerns that some people have but I think that they are overreaching when trying to highlight some of the injustices.


That's probably a better reason not to have it to be honest. That, and the fact that there really isn't a problem that needs fixing. I'd respond much better to this line of reasoning than the "its going to make life unfair for us non religious types" argument.

Now you're putting words in my mouth.

I never said it would make life unfair for "us" non religious types. I said I hate the idea of a right to discriminate being enshrined in law...

I have never been pregnant whilst employed, nor have I ever tried to sack someone who is pregnant so I'm not sure what the rules are on this. Can you sack someone for being pregnant?

As per section .340 of the Fair Work act you cannot. There are no exceptions. It's covered under the General Protections.

But the exception is if you are not entitled to maternity leave (for eg you haven't worked long enough to be entitled to it). Then, your employer can terminate you after three months of unpaid leave. Therefore, you can be terminated because of your pregnancy.

Funny how the act explicitly states there are no exceptions, but then has a gaping loop hole that provides an exception.

That Act is ten years old and the Act it came from is from 1984, and that quite massive loophole still exists and is widely acknowledged....imagine the field day a lawyer might have defending (and creating a precedent) a scumbag under the Discrimination bill?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I see, so what about the below remark ? FYI I am not upset, but it does make me curious how your insecurities leach out from time to time. That’s ok we are all human.

Well the secular community obviously enjoy the bulk of the privilege in society, but they also tend to hypocrisy by claiming that it is religious people who hold all the power.

It's not really an insecurity on my part - I get all the privilege of secularism by pretending I am also secular - but I believe it's unjust that I or anyone else should have to. Obviously no law is going to change that; being free to discriminate on religious grounds will never trump the benefits of identifying as secular, so it's not a right I will ever personally exercise. But I think others should have the choice where they currently don't.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

You can't sack someone for being pregnant.

You can if she's a nun.

 

[Gronk]

Well the secular community obviously enjoy the bulk of the privilege in society, but they also tend to hypocrisy by claiming that it is religious people who hold all the power.

It's not really an insecurity on my part - I get all the privilege of secularism by pretending I am also secular - but I believe it's unjust that I or anyone else should have to. Obviously no law is going to change that; being free to discriminate on religious grounds will never trump the benefits of identifying as secular, so it's not a right I will ever personally exercise. But I think others should have the choice where they currently don't.

Yet you smugly avoided your smugliness. If you’re not insecure, what motivates you to get personal and have a dig ? Curiouser and Curiouser indeed.

On the upside, Gronk, this will lead to big businesses (that sell goods and services to progressive rich white folk) hiring fewer religious employees. So your tribe will still keep winning.

 

[Noise]

I am quite sympathetic to that point but just haven't seen any evidence to suggest that it is a big deal. I also haven't seen any evidence of people proposing anything as an alternative that isn't without its own discrimination.

Maybe Noise's report will help convince me otherwise.

Huh? I think it was Bandwagon.