Religion Reserves the Right to Discriminate

[Krikkiter]

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...115-2crma.html

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has assured religious groups they will have the ''freedom'' under a new rights bill to discriminate against homosexuals and others they deem sinners, according to the head of the Australian Christian Lobby.

Under current law, faith-based organisations, including schools and hospitals, can refuse to hire those they view as sinners if they consider it ''is necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion''.

Any thoughts?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...115-2crma.html

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has assured religious groups they will have the ''freedom'' under a new rights bill to discriminate against homosexuals and others they deem sinners, according to the head of the Australian Christian Lobby.

Under current law, faith-based organisations, including schools and hospitals, can refuse to hire those they view as sinners if they consider it ''is necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion''.

Any thoughts?

Shows how powerful the religious lobby still is, even in Australia.

[dafydd]

It's a pity that religions cannot discriminate between realty and fantasy.

[Dog Breakfast]

Isn't the whole point of religion to quash sin? If homosexuals are sinners, where would they be better off, within a religious group learning how to stop sinning, or outside of one, sinning the day away?

In reality homosexuals are probably better off not being enveloped by religious groups that try to quash their feelings.

[epix]

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...115-2crma.html

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has assured religious groups they will have the ''freedom'' under a new rights bill to discriminate against homosexuals and others they deem sinners, according to the head of the Australian Christian Lobby.

Under current law, faith-based organisations, including schools and hospitals, can refuse to hire those they view as sinners if they consider it ''is necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion''.

Any thoughts?

Aaah, that's just the sidechain synchronization that the heavens occasionally perform. Both Julia Gillard and the pope have been responding to GIGO, because it is the year of our Lord 2013 (twenty thirteen). I think that the handler is the Leviticus plugin...

If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.
Leviticus 20:13

Yep. I wouldn't worry about it, though. It's like when you set your alarm clock.

[rjh01]

Not sure it is a bad idea to allow them to do this. It points out to everyone how inferior religions are if they are allowed to discriminate against minority groups.

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by rjh01

Not sure it is a bad idea to allow them to do this. It points out to everyone how inferior religions are if they are allowed to discriminate against minority groups.

Absolutely. This will hasten their demise.

[Recovering Agnostic]

Originally Posted by epix

Aaah, that's just the sidechain synchronization that the heavens occasionally perform. Both Julia Gillard and the pope have been responding to GIGO, because it is the year of our Lord 2013 (twenty thirteen). I think that the handler is the Leviticus plugin...

If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.
Leviticus 20:13

Yep. I wouldn't worry about it, though. It's like when you set your alarm clock.

Hmm, how odd. I thought it referred to Exodus 20:13: Thou shalt not kill.

Isn't it great that the Bible's such a reliable, consistent basis for morality?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...115-2crma.html

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has assured religious groups they will have the ''freedom'' under a new rights bill to discriminate against homosexuals and others they deem sinners, according to the head of the Australian Christian Lobby.

Under current law, faith-based organisations, including schools and hospitals, can refuse to hire those they view as sinners if they consider it ''is necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion''.

Any thoughts?

Can I demand a secular hospital right next to the religious one so I can choose to discriminate or not? At the churches expense of course.

[chillzero]

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

Religion Reserves the Right to Discriminate

Not everywhere, thankfully.
We've had 4 cases brought to the European courts of human rights, where some christians claimed their right to discriminate was discriminated against, and only one of those won their case:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/j...european-court

[Recovering Agnostic]

Originally Posted by chillzero

Not everywhere, thankfully.
We've had 4 cases brought to the European courts of human rights, where some christians claimed their right to discriminate was discriminated against, and only one of those won their case:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/j...european-court

To be precise, only two of them wanted to be allowed to discriminate (against same-sex couples), and both lost their cases. The other two wanted to wear their crosses at work, in contravention of uniform policy. Their motivation was clearly to promote their particular beliefs, but I'm struggling to frame it as a wish to discriminate.

Interesting point on that, which I blogged about yesterday: although the court found in Nadia Eweida's favour (by a majority - the dissenting opinions are interesting), the deciding point seems to have been that BA changed their uniform policy after review, which the court took as evidence that it didn't need to be so strict in the first place. Despite that perverse conclusion, the court evidently wasn't too impressed with Eweida's behaviour throughout, because she wasn't awarded a Eurocent of her claim for lost earnings, just a small sum of non-pecuniary compensation and her costs.

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by epix

Aaah, that's just the sidechain synchronization that the heavens occasionally perform. Both Julia Gillard and the pope have been responding to GIGO, because it is the year of our Lord 2013 (twenty thirteen). I think that the handler is the Leviticus plugin...

If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.
Leviticus 20:13

Yep. I wouldn't worry about it, though. It's like when you set your alarm clock.

[Gawdzilla]

Here we have yet another way that religion is scum.

[chillzero]

Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic

To be precise, only two of them wanted to be allowed to discriminate (against same-sex couples), and both lost their cases. The other two wanted to wear their crosses at work, in contravention of uniform policy. Their motivation was clearly to promote their particular beliefs, but I'm struggling to frame it as a wish to discriminate.

That's a fair point. I guess I was coming from disliking how they feel they should be allowed to do something different from all their fellow employees. It's different from a claim a sikh may have for the dagger - they want to wear a piece of jewelry, not anything prescribed by their religion as necessary, just something they like because of what they think it means to them. A fellow employee who wants to wear a necklace that was give to them by their dying loved one seconds before they died may impart the same emotional weight to that item. but would not be able to wear it (and would likely accept that - those who don't, move jobs).

Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic

Interesting point on that, which I blogged about yesterday: although the court found in Nadia Eweida's favour (by a majority - the dissenting opinions are interesting), the deciding point seems to have been that BA changed their uniform policy after review, which the court took as evidence that it didn't need to be so strict in the first place. Despite that perverse conclusion, the court evidently wasn't too impressed with Eweida's behaviour throughout, because she wasn't awarded a Eurocent of her claim for lost earnings, just a small sum of non-pecuniary compensation and her costs.

Yes.
I am dismayed that this is being given the headline space, instead of the fact that the UK courts were, in the majority cases, right in what they did.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...115-2crma.html

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has assured religious groups they will have the ''freedom'' under a new rights bill to discriminate against homosexuals and others they deem sinners, according to the head of the Australian Christian Lobby.

Under current law, faith-based organisations, including schools and hospitals, can refuse to hire those they view as sinners if they consider it ''is necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion''.

Any thoughts?

They are also free to devour feces in plentitude and expire.

[16.5]

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...115-2crma.html

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has assured religious groups they will have the ''freedom'' under a new rights bill to discriminate against homosexuals and others they deem sinners, according to the head of the Australian Christian Lobby.

Under current law, faith-based organisations, including schools and hospitals, can refuse to hire those they view as sinners if they consider it ''is necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion''.

Any thoughts?

That appears to be an opinion piece masquerading as news. I can find no other source characterizing the statements of the head of the Lobby group as referring to "sinners."

I can't speak for Australia, of course, but the principle that religious groups should not be forced through anti-discrimination laws to hire individuals whose beliefs are inconsistent with the religious tenets of the organization is firmly based on the First Amendment.

[Recovering Agnostic]

Originally Posted by chillzero

Yes.
I am dismayed that this is being given the headline space, instead of the fact that the UK courts were, in the majority cases, right in what they did.

Well, "right" sounds a bit like a value judgment. I'd prefer to say "in line with the European Convention" to avoid misunderstandings. But I'm not too bothered - anyone celebrating Eweida's narrow victory on what looks to me like a perverse technicality is living in a fool's paradise. The broad principle from Shirley Chaplin's case in particular is that the balance being set is far less favourable towards personal and religious quirks than the noisy end of the Christian spectrum would like. And I'd much rather win than mistakenly think I'd won.

[paiute]

Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic

Hmm, how odd. I thought it referred to Exodus 20:13: Thou shalt not kill.

Isn't it great that the Bible's such a reliable, consistent basis for morality?

The Bible is like one of those huge diners you find sometimes which have a menu 50 pages long. You can find something to eat no matter what your tastes.

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by paiute

The Bible is like one of those huge diners you find sometimes which have a menu 50 pages long. You can find something to eat no matter what your tastes.

And since there is no specialization, the food varies from utter crap to 'meh, could have gone somewhere else for this.'

[pgwenthold]

Quote:

If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.
Leviticus 20:13

Two responses to this:

1) The passage in Leviticus CLEARLY says that men who sleep with other men are to be put to DEATH. Not merely "prevented from getting married" but actually killed. So anyone who invokes Leviticus to justify their anti-gay agenda needs to be advocating for killing gay men, right? But they won't admit that. Michael Signoreli on OutQ (satellite) radio asks this all the time, and the usual answer is that "it's not their place" to carry out the death sentence on these people. So it's really important to use Leviticus to condemn homosexuality, but not important enough to condemn them as Leviticus commands
2) It doesn't say anything about lesbians, so they must be ok, right?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by 16.5

That appears to be an opinion piece masquerading as news. I can find no other source characterizing the statements of the head of the Lobby group as referring to "sinners."

I can't speak for Australia, of course, but the principle that religious groups should not be forced through anti-discrimination laws to hire individuals whose beliefs are inconsistent with the religious tenets of the organization is firmly based on the First Amendment.

Nope. See catholic hospitals in the us can't let women die in contravention of the standard of care even if it is what their beliefs say.

Seems like what we need to do is force religions out of the health care business no matter how much it hurts the churches bottom line.

[16.5]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Nope. See catholic hospitals in the us can't let women die in contravention of the standard of care even if it is what their beliefs say.

Seems like what we need to do is force religions out of the health care business no matter how much it hurts the churches bottom line.

quizzicaldog.jpg.

Not only does you comment not respond to mine, it is self contradictory.

Why would you force religions out of Health care if they are required to meet the standard of care? I'll assume, also, that you are aware that most religious affiliated health care organizations are non-profit. I also don't know who you think should do the "forcing" out of business. Seems a bit big brother-y.

In any event, if you wish to discuss the actual subject of the thread, or what I actually wrote, I'd be happy to discuss.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by 16.5

That appears to be an opinion piece masquerading as news. I can find no other source characterizing the statements of the head of the Lobby group as referring to "sinners."

I can't speak for Australia, of course, but the principle that religious groups should not be forced through anti-discrimination laws to hire individuals whose beliefs are inconsistent with the religious tenets of the organization is firmly based on the First Amendment.

You're arguing describing the problem as believing gays are sinners is different from the politically 'polite' description, "individuals whose beliefs are inconsistent"?

The church calls it sin, why should the reporter water that down to the level the church spokesperson watered it down? Seems to me that would be the political acquiescence, letting the spokesperson get away with renaming the facts.

[16.5]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You're arguing describing the problem as believing gays are sinners is different from the politically 'polite' description, "individuals whose beliefs are inconsistent"?

The church calls it sin, why should the reporter water that down?

I am fairly sure that the person who he was quoting did not use terms "sinners," and that was an intentional appeal to emotion from our polemicist linked in the first post.

There are very few religions that characterize the failure to agree to the tenets of the organization as "sinners," notwithstanding the fact that the author appears quite comfortable jamming words in people's mouths.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by paiute

The Bible is like one of those huge diners you find sometimes which have a menu 50 pages long. You can find something to eat no matter what your tastes.

I liken it more to "57 channels and nothin' on."

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by 16.5

I am fairly sure that the person who he was quoting did not use terms "sinners," and that was an intentional appeal to emotion from our polemicist linked in the first post.

There are very few religions that characterize the failure to agree to the tenets of the organization as "sinners," notwithstanding the fact that the author appears quite comfortable jamming words in people's mouths.

I'm going to assume Oz is a tad like the US when it comes to politicians and the media. Over here they purposefully mis-name legislative actions to control the political discourse in the media. So for example an anti-union law gets named the "Right to Work" bill.

According to your line of reasoning, because the politician (akin to the church spokesman in that public information role) calls it a bill about the right to work, the reporter should not call it an anti-union law.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by 16.5

quizzicaldog.jpg.

Not only does you comment not respond to mine, it is self contradictory.

Why would you force religions out of Health care if they are required to meet the standard of care? I'll assume, also, that you are aware that most religious affiliated health care organizations are non-profit. I also don't know who you think should do the "forcing" out of business. Seems a bit big brother-y.

In any event, if you wish to discuss the actual subject of the thread, or what I actually wrote, I'd be happy to discuss.

Religions are all non profit, and you believe them, how cute.

As long as they can only hire proper Catholic doctors not some damned heathen or heretic right? How about those who's inner sinfulness is shown by the color of their skin?

[16.5]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'm going to assume Oz is a tad like the US when it comes to politicians and the media. Over here they purposefully mis-name legislative actions to control the political discourse in the media. So for example an anti-union law gets named the "Right to Work" bill.

According to your line of reasoning, because the politician (akin to the church spokesman in that public information role) calls it a bill about the right to work, the reporter should not call it an anti-union law.

I am not certain that you accurately characterized what I was saying, but rather than get sidetracked into a discussion about straw men, I'll take a look at your analogy.

And right away, I can see a problem with it, in that in the real life example that we are presently discussing, our essayist is attributing to the spokesmen words he did not in fact say.

But to answer the question, in a news report, the reporter should not characterize something based on his own biased opinions. If he wants to editorialize, it is not a news report.

[16.5]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Religions are all non profit, and you believe them, how cute.

?

Ahhh, I see. Forgive me if I focus on people who are willing to approach this in a more serious fashion.

Thanks for posting.

[TheRedWorm]

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...115-2crma.html

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has assured religious groups they will have the ''freedom'' under a new rights bill to discriminate against homosexuals and others they deem sinners, according to the head of the Australian Christian Lobby.

Under current law, faith-based organisations, including schools and hospitals, can refuse to hire those they view as sinners if they consider it ''is necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion''.

Any thoughts?

That people take the prequel to Jesus: The Legend of the Magical Jew far too seriously.

[Gawdzilla]

This goes into my "So, you are moral because you're religious are you?" file.

[Irony]

Originally Posted by 16.5

That appears to be an opinion piece masquerading as news. I can find no other source characterizing the statements of the head of the Lobby group as referring to "sinners."

I can't speak for Australia, of course, but the principle that religious groups should not be forced through anti-discrimination laws to hire individuals whose beliefs are inconsistent with the religious tenets of the organization is firmly based on the First Amendment.

This applies only to employees who "perform religious duties", beyond the they are (legally, if not in practice) held to the same anti-discrimination laws as other employers.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by 16.5

....But to answer the question, in a news report, the reporter should not characterize something based on his own biased opinions. If he wants to editorialize, it is not a news report.

I do believe you should look again at the OP link. It's an OpEd titled "Political Comment".

[16.5]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I do believe you should look again at the OP link. It's an OpEd titled "Political Comment".

Thanks. Here is what it looks like to me:

"Home National Times Political News Article

National Times

Anti-gay rights to stay

Date
January 16, 2013

30 reading now
Comments 787

Jonathan Swan
Jonathan Swan
Breaking News Reporter

EXCLUSIVE"


/Thanks for the smilies, I usually find they add a significant amount to the discussion.

[Toke]

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...115-2crma.html

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has assured religious groups they will have the ''freedom'' under a new rights bill to discriminate against homosexuals and others they deem sinners, according to the head of the Australian Christian Lobby.

Under current law, faith-based organisations, including schools and hospitals, can refuse to hire those they view as sinners if they consider it ''is necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion''.

Any thoughts?

My first thought were how the churches would react if an Australian business refused to hire christians?

A supermarket chain or other declaring that it want to avoid this whole this whole "sinning and sensitivity" issue by simply not hiring Christians.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by 16.5

Thanks. Here is what it looks like to me:

"Home National Times Political News Article

National Times

Anti-gay rights to stay

Date
January 16, 2013

30 reading now
Comments 787

Jonathan Swan
Jonathan Swan
Breaking News Reporter

EXCLUSIVE"


/Thanks for the smilies, I usually find they add a significant amount to the discussion.

I trump you with the url: www.smh.com.au/ opinion /political-news/antigay-rights-to-stay-20130115-2crma.html where 'opinion' precedes "news' however on closer exam of the site:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion

It would appear the section is further divided into political news and political comment. The OP article appears as political comment when I open the link.

Which is weird because if you scroll down the political news section it appears. The other 'news' articles are inconsistent with some opening with the heading "political comment" and at least one that says in the byline "opinion" doesn't have that heading when you open it.

Have a smilie, on me.

[16.5]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I trump you with the url: www.smh.com.au/ opinion /political-news/antigay-rights-to-stay-20130115-2crma.html where 'opinion' precedes "news' however on closer exam of the site:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion

It would appear the section is further divided into political news and political comment. The OP article appears as political comment when I open the link.

well this seems to be a fruitful topic. The OP article appears as "political News." Lets dig further shall we? Here is how it looks when I click the link for political news:


Mali crisis is Australia's big UN test, says envoy
(photo caption) French soldiers from the 2nd RIMA (French Navy Infantry Regiment), arriving from France, stand at the 101 military airbase near Bamako on January 14, 2013, before their deployment in north of Mali.

NICK O'MALLEY Opinion The unfolding crisis in Mali is Australia's first great test as a member of the United Nations Security Council, said the Australian ambassador to the UN, Gary Quinlan, after an emergency meeting called by France.

Religious groups free to discriminate
(photo caption) Prime Minister Julia Gillard

JONATHAN SWAN THE Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has assured religious groups they will retain their right to discriminate against those who might cause "injury to religious sensitivities" under the new Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill, according to the head of the Australian Christian Lobby.

Did you see what I did there? The article written by Nick O'Malley was clearly identified as "OPINION." Something notably lacking in the link to our hero's screed. here is the link:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news

[Skeptic Ginger]

Since news vs opinion seems to be so muddy, I decided to move on to what exactly the Aussie Christian Lobby states as their beliefs about homosexuals.

Let's start with your original objection:

Originally Posted by 16.5

That appears to be an opinion piece masquerading as news. I can find no other source characterizing the statements of the head of the Lobby group as referring to "sinners."

I can't speak for Australia, of course, but the principle that religious groups should not be forced through anti-discrimination laws to hire individuals whose beliefs are inconsistent with the religious tenets of the organization is firmly based on the First Amendment.

Now let's look at the principal offending statement in the 'news' piece, correct me if I'm wrong and you were objecting to something else in the piece:

Originally Posted by OP link

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has assured religious groups they will have the ''freedom'' under a new rights bill to discriminate against homosexuals and others they deem sinners, according to the head of the Australian Christian Lobby.
Under current law, faith-based organisations, including schools and hospitals, can refuse to hire those they view as sinners if they consider it ''is necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion''.

So what exactly is your objection? That the reporter called it what it was, a belief gays are sinners, and didn't whitewash it as, gays merely acting in a manner "inconsistent with religious tenets"?

Could you clarify why you find the difference offensive? And exactly how is it inaccurate to say they believe the gay is a sin?

[cwalner]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

2) It doesn't say anything about lesbians, so they must be ok, right?

Nah, it just shows that straight guys' obsession with girl-on-girl is at least 3000 years old.

[16.5]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Since news vs opinion seems to be so muddy, I decided to move on to what exactly the Aussie Christian Lobby states as their beliefs about homosexuals.

Let's start with your original objection:

Now let's look at the principal offending statement in the 'news' piece, correct me if I'm wrong and you were objecting to something else in the piece:

So what exactly is your objection? That the reporter called it what it was, a belief gays are sinners, and didn't whitewash it as, gays merely acting in a manner "inconsistent with religious tenets"?

Could you clarify why you find the difference offensive? And exactly how is it inaccurate to say they believe the gay is a sin?

Well, as I believe I pointed out, it includes a loaded word "sinner" which was NOT used by any of the people allegedly quoted in the "news" piece. In fact, a few minutes research shows that other papers in Australia that picked up the story intentionally deleted that word. Example:

"Clarification: The original version of the story said religious groups will have the freedom to discriminate against those deemed "sinners". In fact, the draft law refers to those who might cause "injury to religious sensitivities", a group that includes homosexuals."

On a site such as this, I assume that we can all agree that an accurate presentation of the "facts" is vital, agreed?