GAY TRUTH

Australia has seen two recent initiatives by local Parliaments aimed at what are often called "conversion therapy" practices. No-one supports coercive electro-shock or other oppressive practices imposed on someone without their consent, to change their sexual preferences or identity. But the problem with the recent legislative proposals is that the laws do not target these practices alone (as to which it is hard to find any evidence of them occurring in Australia in recent years), but seem to reach further and to prevent religious groups sharing the teaching of their faith. The Legislation There are two legislative initiatives here. (a) The Queensland Act Queensland has already enacted its version among other changes to its health laws. The  Health Legislation Amendment Act  2020  (Qld) (No 31 of 2020) received the Royal Assent on 20 August 2020. As no other provision is made for commencement of the relevant provisions in Part 5, it has now commenced operati

Three attempts at legislation to ban “conversion therapy” are in process in Victoria, Queensland and the ACT. While Queensland’s draft bill has struck trouble in a parliamentary committee, Victoria’s Premier, Daniel Andrews, has promised to “drag these practices from the dark ages and into the brightest of lights”. The exact form of any new laws is of critical importance, both to conservative Christians and those lobbying for the new laws.  The possibility of criminal sanctions for referring people to, or practicing, “conversion therapy” on LGBT people has been raised by activists Nathan Despott and Chris Csabs in the Sydney Star Observer. "Sexual Orientation Change Efforts" opposed by new movement The prayer puzzle: will 'conversion therapy' laws ban Christian teaching? ‘Praying for gay celibacy' could be banned A common definition of conversion therapy is “any practice or treatment that seeks to change, suppress or eliminate an individual’s sex

Churches have no right to insist on employees that accept and practice their faith’s teachings on homosexuality, according to Austin officials defending an “anti-discrimination” ordinance currently being challenged by two socially conservative groups. The  local ordinance  guarantees “the opportunity for each person to obtain employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, or disability.” It contains an exception for “an employer to hire and employ employees” if one’s sexual orientation or gender identity is a “bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary for the normal operation of a particular business or enterprise,” as well as religious entities’ right to “hire and employ individuals of a particular religion.” But it doesn’t expressly state that a church’s beliefs about such issues qualify. In a  federal lawsuit  filed against the city, the Houston-based U.S. Pastor Council argues that the la

You can laugh all you want to at the thought of gays forcing a church to marry them that doesn’t want to – but churches that don’t tow the gay agenda are up for the next hit by the gay mafia. The gay mafia is just like the Italian mafia, with a protection racket you have to buy into, lest you incur a “hit” on your person, business or group concern. Who has the gay mafia taken on and taken down? The military, the Boy Scouts, schools, legislatures, some liberal churches, all kinds of businesses – like Chick-fil-A, and others that don’t offer domestic partner benefits, and so on. You don’t pay, you won’t play; or in their case, you don’t accept, you will regret. Well, the next big target in their gun sights? The conservative churches, such as Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, Jews and so on. Currently, they don’t allow the marriage of same-sex couples, with very few exceptions (typically, rogue priests or pastors), so, therefore, that is non-acceptance; all the gay mafia hears is, “We do

The Supreme Court won't hear the major  religious liberty case  until Tuesday, but already hopeful spectators and line-holders are bearing colder temperatures equipped with sleeping bags, coolers and lawn chairs hoping to secure a rare seat in the majestic chamber for what could be one of the most important cases of the term. At issue is a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake to celebrate a same-sex couple's marriage because he believes that God designed marriage to be between a man and a woman. The case pits the religious liberty claims of Jack Phillips , who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop, against the couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig , who say Phillips' actions amount to discrimination. No cameras, please: How the Supreme Court shuns the spotlight LGBT rights advocates fear that if the Supreme Court ultimately sides with Phillips, it will diminish its own opinion from two years ago that cleared the way for same-sex marriage nationwide

The country's parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages . Denmark 's liberal church minister , agnostic and LGBTQ supporter, Mr Sareen, called the vote "historic". "I think it's very important to give all members of the church the possibility to get married. Today, it's only heterosexual couples.  The debate has been really tough," said Mr Sareen, an agnostic who has pushed hard for the legislation since taking his post last autumn. Under the law, individual priests can refuse to carry out the ceremony, but the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church. The Danish People's Party mounted a strong campaign against the new law, which nonetheless passed with the support of 85 of the country's 111 MPs .  "Marriage is as old as man himself, and you can't change something as fundamental," the party's church

THE VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT WILL DETERMINE - IF CHRISTIAN BELIEFS ARE NEEDED FOR CERTAIN JOBS ....bizarre! Should a cricket club have freedom to appoint persons who share the values of their club? Should a political party have liberty to pre-select individuals who support and will promote their policies? Should not a corporation employ professionals who will abide by the values and vision of that institution? For most of our nation’s history Churches and Governments have enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship; understanding their distinct roles while together serving for the good of society. Both have had their failings as well as making enormous contributions to building our society, but Australians have always been careful not to confuse the two. Tomorrow (Tuesday 8th November) this judicious relationship may come to an end as the Victorian Government proposes a hostile takeover of all religious organisations. The Victorian Legislative Council will tomorrow debate an