Australians voted 62 to 38 percent in favor of equal marriage. In response, PM Malcolm Turnbull has vowed to have a marriage bill through Parliament by Christmas and shot down attempts by the right wing to neuter the bill:
The bill in question was really pernicious, and obviously derived at least part of its DNA from American "religious freedom" bills.
There's a good editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald that makes a very interesting point in regard to "religious freedom" exceptions to anti-discrimination laws:
I wonder if that point about "religious purpose" has occurred to anyone arguing the Martyred -- sorry, I mean "Masterpiece" Bakery case. It seems central to the whole issue to me.
At any rate, welcome to the club, Australia.
Moments after the survey result was announced, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull appeared before national cameras and vowed his intention to get a same-sex marriage bill through Parliament by Christmas. Watch below.
Earlier today, Turnbull denounced right wing plans to laden the bill with “religious liberty” amendments which would legalize anti-LGBT discrimination by wedding-related businesses. According to Turnbull, such amendments are “non-starters.”
The bill in question was really pernicious, and obviously derived at least part of its DNA from American "religious freedom" bills.
There's a good editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald that makes a very interesting point in regard to "religious freedom" exceptions to anti-discrimination laws:
In 2008, a group talking about suicide prevention with at-risk LGBTI teens from country Victoria booked a getaway at the Phillip Island Adventure Resort. The group, Way Out, did not realise the resort was owned and run by a conservative religious group, the Christian Brethren.(Emphasis added.)
When the Brethren found out who they were hosting, they cancelled the booking, saying the group's activities were "contrary to God's teaching as set out in the Bible", and contravened the resort's "safety" policy.
"Our definition of safety, because of our Christian faith, does not support or include the promotion of homosexuality," the camp said at the time. It was, no doubt, a sincere religious belief.
Even so, the camp lost the case all the way through the courts until the High Court refused special leave to appeal. The camp, the courts said, was a commercial enterprise, and did not have a "religious purpose". It was therefore not protected by the general exemption that religious organisations have under anti-discrimination laws.
I wonder if that point about "religious purpose" has occurred to anyone arguing the Martyred -- sorry, I mean "Masterpiece" Bakery case. It seems central to the whole issue to me.
At any rate, welcome to the club, Australia.
No comments:
Post a Comment