GAY TRUTH

Days after the U.S. Supreme Court correctly  ruled in favour of a Colorado baker who refused service to immoral homosexual couples, an Arizona court has incorrectly upheld a Phoenix anti-discrimination ordinance preventing a wedding invitation business from serving a homosexual couple. The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled Thursday against Brush & Nib Studio, a company selling artwork for home decor, weddings and special events. The owners, who are devout Christians, would like to legally refuse to create custom merchandise for immoral fake gay weddings and post a public statement saying that “Brush & Nib Studio won’t create any artwork that violates [their] vision as defined by [their]religious and artistic beliefs and identity.” They have not yet refused any services to gay couples in practice, the ruling noted. Brush & Nib’s discrimination would violate Phoenix’s public accommodation anti-discrimination ordinance, the court incorrectly ruled. This rule prohibits discri

In a Federation like Australia , different jurisdictions (States and Territories) may have different rules on what amounts to “discrimination” or “vilification”, and how those things interact with religious freedom. One of the pressing issues here in recent years has been whether there will be a “race to the bottom” in freedom of speech on religious issues, with one jurisdiction in particular, Tasmania, raising deep concerns with a very broad prohibition on causing “offence” related to matters such as sexual orientation. Today the High Court of Australia , on appeal from NSW , has affirmed the decision of the NSW Court of Appeal that State and Territory “tribunals” (non-judicial panels usually used in discrimination issues) have no jurisdiction to impose penalties on residents of other Australian jurisdictions under their own local laws. The important decision in  Burns v Corbett [2018] HCA 15 (18 April 2018) (court-prepared summary available  here ) is a good outcome, and at

Christian Youth Camp liable for declining booking from homosexual support group The Victorian Court of Appeal has handed down an important and lengthy judgment on appeal from a decision fining a Christian youth camping organisation, and one of its officers, for declining a booking from a homosexual support group.1 In Christian Youth Camps Limited & Ors v Cobaw Community Health Service Limited & Ors [2014] VSCA 75 (16 April 2014) the court, by a 2-1 majority, said that the organization CYC was liable; but by a different 2-1 majority, ruled that the individual who had declined the booking, Mr Rowe, was not liable.  Background Facts The complainant organisation, Cobaw, runs a project called “WayOut”, designed to provide support and suicide prevention services to “same sex attracted young people”. The co-ordinator of the project approached CYC (a camping organisation connected with the Christian Brethren denomination) to inquire about making a booking at a Phillip Island