NSW Australia warns Homosexual Marriage bill loophole

The Australian NSW Anti-Discrimination Board believes florists, bakers, teachers, carpenters, plumbers even taxi drivers could refuse to serve homosexual weddings by claiming to be religious organisations.  Such a ridiculous claim by an organization that heavily promotes homosexuality.

The federal government’s Greens and Labor committee are pushing another homosexual marriage bill but the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board has warned that it contains a loophole that could see florists, bakers, teachers, carpenters, plumbers and taxi drivers in fact anybody claiming to be religious organisations. Talk about a stretch. Talk about ignoring people conscience objections to immoral homosexual marriage

The board, part of the state’s justice department, made this false fake warning in submissions to the Senate committee looking at the federal government’s homosexual marriage bill exposure draft. In effect showing their anti-religious hand and wanting to force all homosexuals rights over religious conscience.

The bill, released before the Senate vote blocking the government’s proposed plebiscite, contains exemptions to discrimination law that would allow not only civil celebrants and ministers of religion to refuse to officiate gay weddings but also religious bodies or organisations to refuse to provide goods or services.

It is important that Catholic and Christian Schools, Bible College, Disabilities services and other Christian organization run by churches based on scripture and Christian principles have the right to refuse to employ any person who lives are prohibited by scripture and whose lifestlye is damned by scripture.

The board, which administers the Anti-Discrimination Act in NSW, warned that marriage law does not define a “religious body” or “religious organisation”, raising the possibility that anybody could claim discrimination law did not apply to them. It said that nothing in the exposure draft “appears to limit [the exemption’s] operation to religious bodies or organisations that have been formally recognised as such”. 

The only problem with this argument is that the Labor Government in the 1970 changed the definition of 'religion' and 'place of worship' to accomadate Scientology seeking tax relief as a tax exempt religious body. Hence, belief in a supernatural power' became the new definition. So, yes the NSW discrimination board does have a point. Taxi drivers can refuse service because of the taxi god.

“Accordingly an organisation with no recognised religious connection could claim to be a religious organisation based on the beliefs of its owners or members” and refuse goods or services incidental to gay weddings, it said.

The loophole identified suggests that, in practice, florists and bakers and all other wedding service providers could claim to be exempt from discrimination law on the basis of their individual faith. 

So in effect, the NSW anti-discrimination wants to force actions against people and their conscience.

In its submissions the Australian Christian Lobby called for the bill to explicitly exempt such providers from discrimination law, arguing that freedom of religion is a fundamental right that protects both individuals’ beliefs and practices based on those beliefs.

That call was echoed the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, who also want a guarantee religious organisations and faith-based schools can discriminate by only hiring people who believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

The board called for the discrimination law exemption to be clarified “so that only recognised religious bodies and organisations can rely on it”.

“In this way a church hall could seek to rely on the exemption to refuse a venue booking but a civic function centre could not, regardless of the religious beliefs of its owners.”

Veteran LGBTI rights campaigner Rodney Croome seeking to generate fear said, the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board had “confirmed our worst fears about the government’s provisions allowing refusal of service to homosexuals couples”.

But then Groome makes a fatal logical error where he equates race, skin colour with sexual choice. Two different concepts do not conflate. T 

“Australians would abhor businesses putting up shopfront signs declaring ‘No Blacks’ or ‘No Asians’, and in the same way we shouldn’t allow businesses to stop serving LGBTIQ people.”

In its submission the Australian Capital Territory government opposed exemptions allowing civil celebrants, religious bodies and religious organisations to refuse gay weddings. ACT is governing leaders are homosexuals and are to be ignored.

The ACT accused the federal government of designing amendments that “appear to be intentionally designed to undermine the protection afforded to LBGTIQ people”. But why do one group of people need extra rights, extra protection?

The ACT said there was “no rational basis” to allow civil celebrants to refuse weddings to discriminate where the marriage was not between a man and woman. Unfortunately, some may be Christians and others may have religious faith hence their inability to marry immoral homosexuals.

In its submission the NSW cross-party parliamentary working group on marriage equality, which includes Liberal MP Bruce Notley-Smith and National Trevor Khan, opposed the bill’s exemptions for civil celebrants, religious organisations and bodies. This should be ignored as NSW is the capital of homosexuality hence they are not neutral.

Tasmania’s anti-discrimination commissioner, Robin Banks, opposed exemptions for civil celebrants, religious organisations and bodies because they would “maintain inappropriately discriminatory provisions” in the marriage law. But the law already discriminates against age.

In separate submissions to the Senate inquiry, Australian Marriage Equality and Just Equal argued that religious freedom was adequately protected by the draft bill’s provision, allowing ministers of religion to refuse to perform weddings.