As with so many things, this is the reverse of what it is supposed to be.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/14/religious-discrimination-bill-what-will-australians-be-allowed-to-say-and-do-if-it-passes

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.

Examples:

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 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.

Religious activity
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).

Medical services
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.

Examples:

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”



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2019 09:56AM by anybody.

Sorry but I happen to think some of this is good. A lot of bigotry wears a "rational" mask now. Not keen on it in medicine though.

https://m.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2019/dec/12/opinion-faith-inadequate-and-dangerous-cover-racis/

"First of all, we don't do gay weddings or mixed race," said Donna Russell of Boone's Camp Event Hall (101 E. Church Street, Booneville) to LaKambria Welch, who was there to ask about renting the venue for her brother's upcoming marriage.

"OK, so why not—" Welch responded.

"Because of our Christian race, I mean our Christian belief," Russell said.

"OK, we're Christians as well, so—what, what in the Bible tells you that —?"

"Well, I don't want to argue my faith."

"No, that's fine—"

"We just, yeah, we don't participate."

"OK."

"We just choose not to."

"OK. So that's your Christian belief, right?"

"Yes, ma'am."

"OK."

I like how it is in the States, where idiotic speech is already protected.

More government mind control, and loss of personal choice nd freedom

It's never enough for religious folks to live their religion at home and church. They have to make sure they infringe on what everyone else is doing.

If that passes, I feel sorry for employers trying to navigate around religious people who piss off customers.

There is a big difference between having the right to make religious decisions for yourself and making religious decisions that impact others.

I don't know the solution or where the happy medium is.

At some point, theoretically, there could be people who expect to get paid who don't do the job (my religion says so!) and basically insult others (my religion says you are a bad person!).

At what point does being accommodating to religion in public cross the line? If it goes too far, religion may only further alienate itself from the secular world.

Very well said.

An old saying that doesn't mean much anymore I am afraid: "You right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins."

The religious don't see it that way and there are enough of them to keep the power they have.

It's a "special treatment for religion" bill that should not be passed.

And what about the mormon perceived right to lie for the lord?

Any lie to increase one’s income would be sacred because it increases the amount one tithes to HF! So anything goes!

The Mormon right to immunity. Lying for the Lord is OK. It's OK to con people out of their money. It's fine to keep secrets, even from paying members. It's legal to take money from people without disclosing how those funds are being spent. It's legal to hire and fire people because of their religious beliefs, or who their relatives are (or are not).

This Australia bill makes me sick. It's more about power than about belief. I'm already living with this garbage here in Utah.

Fascism loves to perfume itself with religious airs and clothe itself in flags, this appearing both righteous and patriotic.

First they push the limits of what the law will allow to desensitize people to their shrinking autonomy, then they just walk right over it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2019 01:33PM by ptbarnum.