Poll: Religious groups allowed to discriminate

Recommended Videos

Shaoken

New member
May 15, 2009
336
0
0
Gay rights advocates have criticised slated changes to Victoria's equal opportunity laws that will continue to allow religious organisations to discriminate against gays and single parents.

State Attorney-General Rob Hulls says a new Equal Opportunity Bill will be introduced into parliament next year.

Under the changes, religious groups will no longer be able to discriminate on the grounds of race, disability, age, physical features, political belief or breastfeeding.

But they can continue to discriminate on grounds including sexuality or marital status if it is in accordance with their beliefs.

Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group spokesman Rodney Croome says the right to employment and education is more important than pandering to religious prejudice.

"Too often this issue is seen as gay rights versus religious freedom when, in fact, it is about the right to a job you're qualified for, to attend the school of your choosing and to receive essential services," he said.

Australian Christian Lobby director Rob Ward said some of the options canvassed as part of a review of exemptions to the Equal Opportunity Act, had they been implemented, would have had serious repercussions for churches, religious schools and church-related organisations.

"Faith-based groups throughout Victoria have been united in their strong concern about a number of the options being looked at as they would have undermined the very core of these bodies by preventing them from upholding their beliefs in terms of who they employ and, therefore, how they operate," he said.

"It is good to see the Victorian government respecting those concerns and the basic right to religious freedom in this state."

Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission chief executive Helen Szoke said the proposed revamp of the law was a positive step towards a better balance between religious freedom and anti-discrimination.

She said she was pleased religious bodies would soon have to demonstrate how employing someone of a particular religion was an inherent requirement of a job.

"Religious schools or religious charities, for example, will have to show how belonging to a particular religion is relevant to the job they are trying to fill," Dr Szoke said.

"In the case of religious education teachers or chaplains, this will be clear. However, in the case of office staff or the maths teacher it will need to be made explicit how religion is relevant to the job."

The review of the Equal Opportunity Act was conducted by parliament's Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee.
Well this is a step back for the fight against discrimination.

EDIT: For those of you who asked, this takes place in Victoria, Australia. It's a state that covers 237,629 km² (making it the 6th largest state in Australia) and has a population of 2 million people.
 

chronobreak

New member
Sep 6, 2008
1,865
0
0
Seems about right to me. If one of the rules of your faith is you cannot be gay, then until that rule changes if it ever does, you cannot practice that faith. Well, you can, but it wouldn't count in the eyes of the people who lead the faith. I think gay folk should just make their own thing up, and exclude everyone else, but most gay folk I have met would never do something like that, because they know discrimination all too well.

This is just one of those things, and an example of how religion can complicate things. I'd say take this fight on later, work on getting yourselves married in all 50 states first, which I guarantee will happen before religion stops discriminating against gays.

As far as the status of marraige, as a married man, I'm used to being a second class citizen. You single people don't know how bitchin' you got it. Everything is marketed to you, everyone wants your opinion, and you can be a priest/priestess in any damn church you want, no questions asked. Now that's living.
 

Arsen

New member
Nov 26, 2008
2,705
0
0
I like how the word "discriminate" is used openly as a word for every single thing people disagree with these days.

Until gays are being beaten on a daily basis, killed on many occassions, and barred from eating at a pub... THEN we can use the term.

THIS is just people disagreeing over homosexuality.
 

Shaoken

New member
May 15, 2009
336
0
0
Arsen said:
I like how the word "discriminate" is used openly as a word for every single thing people disagree with these days.
Dude, what else is it? They are legally allowed to reject people from working for them based soley on if they are a single-mother or gay. That's the textbook diffinition of discrimination.

Until gays are being beaten on a daily basis, killed on many occassions, and barred from eating at a pub... THEN we can use the term.
Yeah....no, you're wrong here. That's just extreme forms of discrimination.

Unless you think that a business that refuses to hire gays and single-mothers specifically because they're gay or single mothers, is not actually discrimination. If so, what the fuck would you call it? A strong way of saying "We don't like you?"
 

feather240

New member
Jul 16, 2009
1,921
0
0
Ugh, a religion thread...

The real question is why would they want to work for those people.
 

Arsen

New member
Nov 26, 2008
2,705
0
0
Shaoken said:
Arsen said:
I like how the word "discriminate" is used openly as a word for every single thing people disagree with these days.
Dude, what else is it? They are legally allowed to reject people from working for them based soley on if they are a single-mother or gay. That's the textbook diffinition of discrimination.
The single mother part is shitty, but overall...if they are the organizations key beliefs, then they are their key beliefs.
 

Kpt._Rob

Travelling Mushishi
Apr 22, 2009
2,417
0
0
They should be allowed to discriminate. And I should be allowed to criticize them for their biggotry, and the biggotry of the deity they worship. Forcing them not to discriminate will do nothing but create social (as opposed to institutionalized) methods of discrimination.
 

Halfbreed13

New member
Apr 21, 2009
1,066
0
0
Arsen said:
I like how the word "discriminate" is used openly as a word for every single thing people disagree with these days.

Until gays are being beaten on a daily basis, killed on many occassions, and barred from eating at a pub... THEN we can use the term.

THIS is just people disagreeing over homosexuality.
I would give you the links to the many people beaten, harrassed, murder, etc. for being gay, but what is the point? You seem to be dead set against acknowledging what is right in front of you, so I will just post this:
You are wrong.
 

Notsomuch

New member
Apr 22, 2009
239
0
0
Any group is allowed to discriminate without any legal repercussion as long as they are not involved with the government or taking handouts from the government. It's bad and some may not like it but freedom of speech and expression have to go both ways. If only popular views were protected there would be literally no reason to have the laws protecting free speech and expression in the first place since the only views that need protecting are those that the majority of a society find wrong.
 

Arsen

New member
Nov 26, 2008
2,705
0
0
Shaoken said:
Arsen said:
I like how the word "discriminate" is used openly as a word for every single thing people disagree with these days.
Dude, what else is it? They are legally allowed to reject people from working for them based soley on if they are a single-mother or gay. That's the textbook diffinition of discrimination.

Until gays are being beaten on a daily basis, killed on many occassions, and barred from eating at a pub... THEN we can use the term.
Yeah....no, you're wrong here. That's just extreme forms of discrimination.

Unless you think that a business that refuses to hire gays and single-mothers specifically because they're gay or single mothers, is not actually discrimination. If so, what the fuck would you call it? A strong way of saying "We don't like you?"
Then stop using to term to convey the highest social disregard.
 

Destal

New member
Jul 8, 2009
522
0
0
Shaoken said:
Arsen said:
I like how the word "discriminate" is used openly as a word for every single thing people disagree with these days.
Dude, what else is it? They are legally allowed to reject people from working for them based soley on if they are a single-mother or gay. That's the textbook diffinition of discrimination.
The single mother thing can be a huge impact on how reliable the worker is as far as attendance. Children get sick and take up large amounts of time from a family with two parents, when only one is involved it gets far more complicated. Is it fair? Probably not. However, it's not like they were forced to have children either.

Barring someone from getting a job based on being gay or not is just plain dumb. Employers should be hiring whoever will make them the most money. Any good business person will do exactly that.

It also looks like the only place that this really affects is in the religious schools themselves. It doesn't say anything about workplace or beyond. Unless the private school receives some form of public funding, the state really shouldn't regulate it.
 

Arsen

New member
Nov 26, 2008
2,705
0
0
Halfbreed13 said:
Arsen said:
I like how the word "discriminate" is used openly as a word for every single thing people disagree with these days.

Until gays are being beaten on a daily basis, killed on many occassions, and barred from eating at a pub... THEN we can use the term.

THIS is just people disagreeing over homosexuality.
I would give you the links to the many people beaten, harrassed, murder, etc. for being gay, but what is the point? You seem to be dead set against acknowledging what is right in front of you, so I will just post this:
You are wrong.
By that I mean on a level equal to what Black Americans and the NAtive Americans have gone through. If America is not for gay marriage then it shouldn't be forced down out throats yet. Why no one respects this is simply beyond me.

I do not hate gays, nor do I treat them any differently. But certain beliefs are certain beliefs and to dub it discrimination because of the technicality of the term is just immature.

Edit - Wait, is this set in America?
 

Shaoken

New member
May 15, 2009
336
0
0
Arsen said:
Shaoken said:
Arsen said:
I like how the word "discriminate" is used openly as a word for every single thing people disagree with these days.
Dude, what else is it? They are legally allowed to reject people from working for them based soley on if they are a single-mother or gay. That's the textbook diffinition of discrimination.

Until gays are being beaten on a daily basis, killed on many occassions, and barred from eating at a pub... THEN we can use the term.
Yeah....no, you're wrong here. That's just extreme forms of discrimination.

Unless you think that a business that refuses to hire gays and single-mothers specifically because they're gay or single mothers, is not actually discrimination. If so, what the fuck would you call it? A strong way of saying "We don't like you?"
Then stop using to term to convey the highest social disregard.
....okay, you need to elaborate on this because I'm somewhat confused as to what you mean.
 

Mookie_Magnus

Clouded Leopard
Jan 24, 2009
4,011
0
0
Arsen said:
I like how the word "discriminate" is used openly as a word for every single thing people disagree with these days.

Until gays are being beaten on a daily basis, killed on many occassions, and barred from eating at a pub... THEN we can use the term.

THIS is just people disagreeing over homosexuality.
They have been. Have you not heard of 'gay-bashing'? Homosexuals have been persecuted for being who they are for decades, nay, centuries. During the middle-ages, Homosexuals were rounded up, the same as Jews, Muslims, and Protestants, and treated to the torments and torture of the Inquisitions.
During the last century(the 1900's) Gays were routinely beaten outside of bars, in alleyways, etc. In the US Military, the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' rule was enacted because a homosexual soldier was killed by his bunkmates. Homosexuals today still receive discriminatory treatment. Maybe not where you live, but you come here, to Texas. You'll see that homophobia and bigotry is alive and well. It pains me to see the way people talk about homosexuality.
 

Ninja_X

New member
Aug 9, 2009
616
0
0
Should they be allowed to bar gay people or single mothers from working for them? NO

Can they disagree with homosexuality? Yes
 

RavingPenguin

Engaged to PaintyFace
Jan 20, 2009
2,438
0
0
I know this is Tasmania.. but... how does the saying go? Seperation of Church and State? Is that right? Doesn't that mean that the State has no right telling the Church how to behave in its ideals and vice versa? Or am I just getting this confused.
 

Shaoken

New member
May 15, 2009
336
0
0
Destal said:
Shaoken said:
Arsen said:
I like how the word "discriminate" is used openly as a word for every single thing people disagree with these days.
Dude, what else is it? They are legally allowed to reject people from working for them based soley on if they are a single-mother or gay. That's the textbook diffinition of discrimination.
The single mother thing can be a huge impact on how reliable the worker is as far as attendance. Children get sick and take up large amounts of time from a family with two parents, when only one is involved it gets far more complicated. Is it fair? Probably not. However, it's not like they were forced to have children either.

Barring someone from getting a job based on being gay or not is just plain dumb. Employers should be hiring whoever will make them the most money. Any good business person will do exactly that.

It also looks like the only place that this really affects is in the religious schools themselves. It doesn't say anything about workplace or beyond. Unless the private school receives some form of public funding, the state really shouldn't regulate it.
I interpretted it as to mean any form of religious group, so any religious businesses could legally do the same thing.


For anyone whose confused, the story is from Victoria, Australia.
 

KarumaK

New member
Sep 24, 2008
1,068
0
0
I'm pretty sure do to 'Separation of Church and State' that religious organizations are not government property. And if they're private property they should be able to tell whoever they want to GTFO.