By JAMILA RIZVI
Hello sinners.
Yes, I mean you. You, the ones who are living with your unmarried partners. You, the sexually active people without wedding rings on your fingers. You, who purchase and use contraceptive devices such as (gasp!) condoms or the pill. You who have sexual relations with people of the same gender… I’m talking to all of you.
So it turns out, the Government isn’t terribly troubled if you’re fired from your job for no other reason than the things you do in your private life are ‘against God’.
Newspaper reports today have revealed that a special exemption permitting the Catholic Church and other religious organisations to ignore much of this country’s anti-discrimination laws will remain intact. And who will they be allowed to discriminate against? You.
And this isn’t just about priests, ministers and members of the clergy. It goes much wider than that. So, that lovely receptionist Casey, who works the phones at the front office of your kid’s Catholic Primary School had better keep the fact she’s using IVF to herself. And your cousin Ben, shouldn’t bother going for that job running communications for a religious charitable organisation because they can legally refuse to hire him on the basis that his life partner happens to be a man.
Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby, Jim Wallace has confirmed that he has had a friendly chat and a cuppa with the Prime Minister several times to discuss this very issue. Now, the power of religious lobby groups like the one Wallace leads may not have the public prominence in Australia that they do in some other countries – but their influence shouldn’t be underestimated.
And according to Wallace (who has proved himself loudly and repeatedly to be no friend of the gay community), the Prime Minister “has no intention of restricting freedom of religion” when it comes to religious groups’ legal rights to discriminate when it comes to employment.
Un-holy mother of science.
That means, amendments to anti-discrimination laws that the Government is planning will not make the much-need change to the status quo. Religious organisations will be allowed to hire and fire people for being gay, or having sex before marriage, or any other such behaviour that could supposedly injure the “religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion”.
Now that’s not to say the the bulk of them will – more and more we’re seeing religious organisations embrace a more tolerant and inclusive position on these issues – but the fact remains that at least one very influential representative group, thinks these laws are absolutely necessary. And why would they be necessary if they weren’t going to be utilised?
So why is the Labor Party giving in to the Australian Christian Lobby on this issue before they’ve even engaged in the political fight in the first place? It’s all a political exercise in trying to stop Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott capitalising on a perceived advantage. Just like Coalition strategists are running interference with the prevailing community view that Abbott is anti-women’s rights, Labor are staunchly refusing to give up ground on the so-called ‘values’ debate.
The Government is terrified of religious organisations running a campaign against them that is based on values issues like this one. Much has been made of the fact the Prime Minister is an unmarried, atheist without children. And while the Coalition won’t attack her on this point precisely, they will seek to paint a picture of Abbott as the happy-families, community leader kinda guy.
It’s about contrast: Abbott delivers a Christmas message alongside his wife, poses for the Women’s Weekly with his daughters and talks about families like someone who knows just a little bit more about them than the Prime Minister. Communications specialists and political strategists say a little prayer, and snap – there’s the election in the bag.
Now, I’m a political pragmatist: A believer that the perfect should not be allowed to become the enemy of the good, that compromise is what gives us the ability to get things done, that settling for incremental change over no change isn’t settling at all. I firmly believe that in pursuit of the right cause – a pragmatic approach is what is best.
And while our Constitution enshrines Australian’s right to religious freedom and thus provides for the separation of the church from the State, there ain’t anything in there about the separation of the church from politics. So, I recognise that deals need to be done, bargains struck and compromises made to achieve an outcome.
But anti-discrimination laws and most particularly this one, aren’t something where the Australian Labor Party should be willing to compromise. This is a change that really matters. It’s not about symbolism or addressing surface level inequality but about putting a stop to actual discrimination that affects the ability of our citizens to enter into gainful employment.
As the law currently stands, Australia enshrines the rights of religious organisations to discriminate; we make it permissible. What is even more repugnant is that this discrimination is allowed to occur in organisations that receive funding from the Federal Government. That’s right, there are religious organisations that are perfectly content getting access to the taxes that gay and lesbian Australians pay, just so long as they aren’t the ones paying those ‘sinners’ in the first place.
You know, I’m not particularly fussed if religious groups want to place absurd and discriminatory restrictions on who can and can’t be involved in their organisation. It’s their club, they get to make the rules and it’s not a club I’m remotely interested in joining.
But when that club gets Government funding? Well, then you need to play by the same rules as everyone else.
Now I’m not religious, so I’m not going to be so presumptive at to try and speak for those who are. But I do think that Labor have it wrong on this one from both the idealistic and the pragmatic perspective. Because aside from the fact that pursuing this change is the RIGHT THING TO DO, I am going to venture that many Australians of faith aren’t with the Australian Christian Lobby on this one anyway.
Many Australians of faith are unmarried. Many of them are using condoms. Many of them are homosexual. And while they are respectful of their church’s position on many of these so-called value issues – that doesn’t mean it’s something they necessarily agree with. The employment of sinners by religious organisations is not something that keeps people up at night. Nor will it sway their vote.
So, how about this for some political pragmatism:
The chances are that Labor is going to lose this election. I desperately hope that doesn’t happen but it’s a very real and at this point in time, likely, proposition. And if the Labor Party is going down federally, why don’t they go down doing something that their members and supporters can be proud of.
Labor needs to remind the public what they stand for and show Australians that they mean it when they talk about fairness and equality for all. They need to prove that as a party they are willing and eager to find political compromise where necessary but that there are some things that matter too much and Australians’ rights to be treated fairly in the employment market – regardless of their religion or sexuality – is one of them.
It’s time for Labor to step up to rather than shy away from the big fights.
And I suspect that if they do, it might just mean those electoral prospects take a turn for the better.
Political disclaimer: Jamila Rizvi is a member of the Australian Labor Party and has worked for both the Rudd and Gillard Governments.









Comments
158 Comments so far
Perhaps you could write next articles referring to this article. I want to read more things about it! Excellent post. I was checking continuously this blog and I am impressed! Extremely useful information specially the last part
My Summer with Gertrude Stein http://www.nfqw.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=79610
loading...
Our taxes go to many organizations, including gay and lesbian not-for-profits offering a myriad of support services. If we go along the line of thinking that our taxes should only go where we think they should then we have missed the point.
loading...
I think, when you apply to work at a values-based organisation, you should at least be willing to espouse those values, and play down aspects of your life that don’t fit it. I was raised Catholic, but not married in the Catholic church, and don’t presently attend one or raise my kids Catholic. Hence, it is years since I bothered kneeling or making the sign of the cross when praying at church or privately. However, when I worked as a TA in a Catholic school, I would do both of these when appropriate, fluently, making it clear to observers that I had been raised Catholic. That’s because it’s not a part of the tradition I now worship in, but neither action contradicts my beliefs (or the Bible), so why not? As I see it, they are merely outworkings of what should be an inward reality in my prayers, and perhaps outward signs help at times. The Hail Mary was a bit more of a problem, with the references to specifically Catholic belief regarding intercession and the communion of the saints, but with heads bowed, no one need know whether I was saying the words or not. Let them assume what they will.
To sum up, I would like to pose the question: why would you apply to work for a values-based organisation whose values you are fundamentally opposed to? Or if you do apply, why can you not accept that you will be expected to hide, downplay or simply not mention those facets of your life which contradict said values? I am genuinely curious. I would not apply to work with an atheist association or other organisation where I have a problem with their core values, or cannot espouse those values on the organisation’s behalf with honesty. Is this different? If so, how?
loading...
I will discriminate against whoever/whatever I wish. No legislation can ever prevent this. Foolish to assume that morality can be legislated. For one thing, I prefer to avoid the company of those who are homosexual (‘gay’, is apparently the present euphamism for this condition).
loading...
Can I just ask why you don’t want to be in their company?
loading...
I never give reasons. It weakens the ego.
loading...
Richard cranium!
loading...
Coward – cant even answer a question.
loading...
Hi any church people out there
I’ve been involved in churches (from a couple of denominations) for over 30 years. Never ever ever, not once, have I ever been told who to vote for.
Do some churches do this? Genuinely curious…..
loading...
I have never heard it in my church (Uniting)
loading...
Gone to church since day dot. Attended 4 different churches, all different denominations. NEVER ever been told who to vote for. Can’t remember politics coming up tbh!
loading...
I doubt they have said she has to marry in a church as the Catholic church does not recognise divorce therefore they would not marry her.
loading...
It makes me giggle when people only want Catholics to teach at the Catholic school where they are sending their children. They are limiting their children from getting the best teachers and instead just getting teachers who subscribe to a belief.
loading...
I don’t see it as funny or weird. Religious people want an entire lifestyle and who’s to say just because you are a Catholic/religious teacher you aren’t the best anyway?
loading...
I was a secretary in one of the largest Anglican church welfare organisations in the 80s & 90s and would answer phone calls from job applicants querying whether they needed to be Anglican to work in the organisation. At that time the policy was you did not need to be Anglican to work there, you only needed to be willing to work within the Mission Statement (which was very broad about providing assistance to others). So it didn’t matter if applicants – and employees – were married, living together, homosexual, heterosexual, using IVF, etc. The only thing that mattered was you were willing to work within the Mission Statement. When I’d tell them this they’d be like, “How easy is that, wouldn’t everyone?”. It surprises me that this wouldn’t still be the case, 20 years later, because how could we have gone so backwards in that time to have arrived at THIS!
loading...
I work for a catholic welfare organisation and what you’ve described is still exactly the case for us – and yes, living by values such as honesty, charity, forgiveness and love are pretty universal. We have had gay couples, singles, straight couples, unsures, every possible sexuality, every gender, every ethnicity… No discrimination here. I wish I had a dollar though for every time someone has assumed we are all raging Catholics who are dying to convert them! COuldnt be further from the truth lol.
loading...
I would have thought that the religious institutions, especially the Catholics, would be too busy preparing for the scrutiny of the long awaited Royal Commission.
loading...
May I say, shame on any organisation that practices and promotes this type of discrimination.
Might I say a bigger shame upon any government that allows an organisation, religious or otherwise, to practice and promote this type of discrimination.
loading...
Oh….Jamila !!!!!!
I thought it rather clever that you turned what should be a very severe criticism of “your” ALP into an attack on Tony Abbott.
Let us be real for a sec. It is the Gillard Labor government currently running the country. What you discuss is the policy of the Gillard Labor government. Put the boot in where it is deserved.
When Abbott becomes Prime Minister, should his government support and promote this type of policy then put the boot in there !
How about giving the current Prime Minister a good and sincere telling off in this instance ?
loading...
I should add, that if this ever becomes Liberal Party policy…..I shall be a the head of the line bitching, moaning, screaming and yelling at any MP who supports this type of discrimination.
loading...
These exemptions have been in the anti-discrimination laws since their inception, under both Labor and Coalition governments. I would suspect then, that if anyone asked the Liberals then yes, this actually is their policy too?
loading...
Can I remind everyone that religious institutions aren’t just schools. They are family financial counsellors, family relationship centres, job network providers, training providers…as government has outsourced its responsibilities it has done so largely to not for profits, many of which are religious.
When I worked for (secular) not for profits until two years ago it was the fastest growing ‘industry’ in the country, employing something like 18% of Australians. (going off memory)
That is not an inconsiderable number of people whose personal lives can stop them getting a job as an accountant or inancial counsellor or recruiter because of their sexuality or other private matters that contradict a religion (I wonder if the salvos hire drinkers?)
loading...
Yes Dee I agree and hospitals too. The big hospital servicing half of Canberra is a catholic one contracted by the government to provide public services. And many family support and counseling services are contracted by government to religious organizations, meaning you can’t be sure you will get a non judgmental hearing if you go to them.
loading...
I find it helpful to try to compare by reversing situations. Another group which is currently allowed to discriminate are womens groups. They are given they same permission to discriminate against men, to provide women only areas. Should we enforce anti discrimination laws and make such groups employ men? I think not.
There should always be room for exceptions. Whether the religious exception should be allowable under law should be up to the community at large. We all have individual opinions – and to declare one group bigoted or biased based on your own viewpoint, without being willing to accept that another person has the diametrically opposing view – and that they are not illogical, irrational or stupid – is equally bigoted.
loading...
What are some examples of women-only groups who discriminate against men? I’m not trying to provoke here, I’m just geniunely interested as I can’t think of any off the top of my head
loading...
I think she’s probably referring to things like women’s only gyms.
loading...
What womens groups?
And I don’t think people are calling christians stupid. Just saying they should not be allowed to discriminate against people for their private lives and choices that have nothing to do with how well they do their job.
loading...
My first reaction would be that women make up half the population and do not choose their gender, therefore if such discriminatory organisations were allowed to exist and attract govt funding they would seem more deserving of it than a minority group who CHOOSES to subscribe to that belief system. Not that minority groups shouldn’t attract funding generally but I think the two situations are entirely different.
loading...
Thanks! I agree! And what about cases of ‘positive discrimination’ such as uni enrolment for indigenous people? It’s a slipery slope and to say that organisations are unable to hire and fire based on their own moral code is also discriminatory!
loading...
In what is probably going to be an unpopular comment I don’t disagree with this.
Part of the reason children are sent to faith based schools is because their parents want them to be educated in the beliefs and ideals of that faith. We all say that actions speak louder than words, and children take in what you do, not just what you say. But we should make an exception in this circumstance?
I’m sure a steakhouse wouldn’t be too keen on hiring a vegetarian chef. An abortion clinic wouldn’t love the idea of having a pro-lifer on staff and you probably wouldn’t want a nurse with “anti-vaxxer” ideals running around doing the school vaccination programs and speaking with parents.
And this isn’t the only case of exceptions to discrimination laws.
Womens only gyms anyone?
loading...
Womens only gyms don’t receive government funding.
loading...
So the only issue is the funding. If a school or institution received no funding, then you would be happy for them to discriminate??
loading...
No, obviously not, but that’s not the point is it. Religion and politics are separate, and should always be. Religious schools recieve Government funding, therein lies the problem. It would be a cold day in hell, before a religious organization would give up money though, so therefore they should abide by the anti – discrimination laws like everybody else.
loading...
So if all the religious schools stopped receiving funding, they would probably have to close, meaning all the thousands upon thousands of kids would have to go to a government school. We can all see the problem here.
If you don’t like what the schools preach, don’t work there or send your kids there. It’s quite easy.
loading...
If religious schools need Government funds to operate, paid for by the Australian taxpayer, then they need to abide by the Australian laws like everybody else, which include anti- discrimation in the work place laws. It’s quite easy. Why should religious bodies be exempt from Australian laws?
loading...
Religious people have to tolerate their tax dollars being spend on e.g. medicare rebates for abortions, funding for gay and lesbian organizations etc, so I don’t see why the non religious are getting up in arms about tax dollars going to religious schools, organizations, etc. the religious pay tax like everyone else so they should get some tax dollars spent on their insttitutions.
loading...
people are getting up in arms because religious bodies want to be exempt from the laws that everybody else in Australia have to abide by, but also use the Australian taxpayers money, then discriminate against those very same taxpayers when it comes to employing them. It’s wrong and it stinks. Discrimination of any kind is just ugly, a
ways has been.
loading...
Just regarding your analogy, a chef is a trained professional, what they can cook and cook well has absolutely nothing to do with what they chose to eat themselves.
loading...
but if a vegetarian WANTED to work at the steakhouse – what’s the problem?
if a pro-lifer WANTED to work at the abortion clinic because they felt that they disagree with it but would rather assist people abort safely – what’s the problem?
Your talking about people who probably wouldn’t WANT jobs at those locations anyway….if your against abortion why WOULD you want to work at an abortion clinic – and if you DID get through you’re likely going to cause problems for the organization by harassing clients so you’ll be fired; for a good reason.
loading...
Bigotry is bigotry whether it’s violence against lesbians & gays in the streets or in Commonwealth legislation that seeks not to offend the ‘religious sensitivities’ of bigots.
Until we have the rights accorded us by the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights i.e. equality before the law WITHOUT DISTINCTION, the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill/Act is not worth the paper it’s written on.
loading...
My son attends a Catholic School in Sydney.
The school employs a teacher who (I believe) is not married to his female partner and they both live on the school campus. He is a great teacher and role model for the boys. His personal life is not an issue day-to-day.
Not long back, the school dismissed one of the admin’ staff after it was confirmed she had a tryst with a “gappie”. Both consenting adults involved in a short term relationship. This is not a good model for the boys.
All the talk of funding and morals is bunk. A school, or any other institution be it religious or not, will retain staff who overtly contribute to the stated, common goal. Those who do not will not be retained.
V
loading...
Just to debunk the myth that all MM writers are in cahoots, I have to say I don’t share Jamila’s outrage on this one. As long as the terms of employment are made clear, I think a religious organisation should be able to employ or not employ according to their beliefs. Let’s say an abortion clinic discovered their receptionist was a fundamentalist Christian who spent her spare time trying to talk women into having babies they didn’t want. Of course they would want to fire her – and in my opinion, they should be able to. This scenario is unlikely, sure – but just as unlikely as a Catholic school firing a teacher using IVF.
loading...
Kate, an abortion clinic isn’t a religious organisation so it wouldn’t have any protection. I’m not sure your analogy is appropriate.
loading...
I completely disagree. Discrimination of any kind, is ugly. Tolerance and acceptance is the only way. Otherwise where does it stop?
loading...
So in your view, religious institutions who receive public funding, like schools, should be able to discriminate? The example that comes to mind is the catholic school in Broken Hill who refused entry to a student because their parents are in a same sex relationship. Do you support this?
loading...
If that happened at my kids’ school (which is Catholic) I would have to concede that is the principal’s right, but I would move my kids and I know plenty of other parents would too.
loading...
What a receptionist does in her spare time has nothing to do with her job. As long as she’s not voicing those opinions in the work place or picketing outside in her spare time, what business is it of her employer? What grounds would they have to fire her? Where does this type of attitude end?
loading...
You’d be up for a lot more in school fees if govt funding was taken away from such an outdated and discriminatory institution as the Catholic Church, though, right Kate? As a practising Catholic, that’s a huge old bias right there.
loading...
My point is it’s a largely academic argument. I went to a Catholic School for 12 years and my kids go to them now. I have no doubt there are schools that slavishly adhere to papal doctrine, but that’s not my experience. The schools I’ve seen are packed, like any other school, with kids whose parents are divorced, single, gay, using contraception. A goodly percentage of kids were no doubt CONCEIVED using IVF. That’s a whole lot of sinners and no one’s batting an eyelid.
loading...
“That’s a whole lot of sinners and no one’s batting an eyelid.”
Then why not give up the exemption? If no one’s using it, surely it’s not required?
loading...
That’s like Tony Abbott’s argument that he has a sister who is gay/staffer using IVF and he likes them, so he’s an OK guy though. He’s still against it. In supporting the organisations in the first place, you’re saying that their philosophy that homosexuality/IVF/abortion is wrong, you’re supporting the promotion of those values.
loading...
Jamila’s a member of the Labor party and yet disagrees with some of its views. Why should it be any different for Kate?
loading...
I don’t think it should be. I was a member of the ALP years ago, they changed their actions so that I didn’t feel that they were actually the tenets of the Labor Party, so I resigned. I think that if people stay members of any institution voluntarily that they disagree with they should reconsider. It’s hypocritical.
loading...
Hi Kate
I think it’s outrageous that any government-funded organisation should be legally entitled to discriminate against anyone. Not discriminating should be a clear condition of the funding and if religious organisations etc feel they have valid reasons to go against this; then they should forgo the public money and raise their funds themselves. It’s as simple as that to me….
Cheers
Lauren
loading...
Hi Lauren0108 I take your point. It’s something I struggle with.
loading...
Who we, as adults, choose to love in a mutually acceptable relationship is nobody else’s business.
Sex, however, drives religious types crazy.
Religions have always sought to pry open our bedroom doors to make it their business.
There’s something about the intimacy shared between people that very obviously shuts out religions and has them desperate to take control.
The irresponsible stance taken by the Catholic Church towards banning the use of condoms in Africa (for eg.) has condemned millions to horrific deaths.
The refusal to allow priests to marry has, for generations, set up an impossible life for healthy men to safely live with their chosen female partners and has encouraged gay priests to live in fear of abandonment……….those child abusers in the clergy have enjoyed a veil of secrecy that’s protected them and their employment.
Religions have always used sex and gender to be devices of control, particularly over women.
For the life of me, I can’t see what benefit there is for women to adopt a religious life.
Believe it or not, it’s quite possible to have morals & ethics guide your life without any religion at all………..simple right or wrong………empathy for others and KINDNESS is all anyone needs in this world to live a good life.
Yes, I want our present Govt to step up and fight this anti-discrimination battle and I want our first female Prime Minister to grab this opportunity to keep all Australians free of this creeping, sinister trend to control their lives in both the workplace AND the bedroom.
loading...
If you are a teacher in a Catholic school you sign an agreement that you will embody the values of the Catholic Church and will be a good role model of faith to students. In other words, you keep your private life private. I have no problem signing this document, if I did I would find a job elsewhere. I am an unmarried mother who teaches in a Catholic school. It is ridiculous though to suggest that people in other roles who don’t teach the children should also have to embody the faith in word and action. And it is wrong that there is this underlining loophole that allows the organisation to sack someone on the basis of their private and personal life – it should be removed. However, I don’t think in reality it is used often – I’m sure people are employed and retained for their merits. With teachers it’s a little different and perhaps in very rare circumstances, if a teacher is actively and constantly contradicting Church values and all other appropriate steps have been taken, then perhaps it is the best outcome to remove that teacher from duty, although I don’t know why they’d want to teach in a Catholic school in the first place if they are vehemently against it, and I have never heard of this happening.
Catholic education (at least where I have worked) is very progressive in my view and the schools I have worked for have employed gay teachers and single mums (and I’m sure people who use IVF.) They only ask that teachers don’t share the intimate details of their private lives with students. In RE students learn about sex, contraception, STD’s, relationships, other religions, the history of religion and more. It is not the ‘brainwashing’ some people assume, more along the lines of “sex is best between two people who love each other and are married, however, if you are going to have sex, you need to be safe…”
My point is that Catholic schools are organisations that hire people who are different in lots of ways and Wallace and the ACL are not reflective of all Catholic organisations. Also, I have no problem with signing the agreement to not do or say anything that contradicts the teachings and values of the school – if I wanted to contradict it, why work there? So ultimately, I think I’m in two minds. I think the law is acceptable for teachers, in rare and extenuating circumstances, but not for staff in other roles.
loading...
A friend teaches at a Catholic school. There was a huge furore when she got divorced. To the principal, it was immaterial that her husband was an alcoholic and e,otionally abusive.
Now the teacher is getting remarried but is doing so in a garden rather than a church. She has been told that she will be removed from the executive teaching committee and it has been intimated that she should find another school if she does not change her plans and get married in a church. Apparently, she could be offending certain “sensitive” members of staff, and the wider school community,
That there is a provision in the Fair Work Act that allows this kind of behaviour completely blows my mind.
loading...
You can’t actually get married in Catholic church if you have been divorced..
loading...
“They only ask that teachers don’t share the intimate details of their private lives with students. ”
But what if students *ask* – just friendly questions? “Ma’am, are you married or single?” “Neither, I’m in a de facto relationship with a woman”. Does the teacher answer with the truth, or does she lie?
loading...
Well, obviously, she doesn’t say she is a lesbian, she just says she has a partner. In my experience, students don’t actually ask that many questions (they are fairly self-involved!) and if they do, a gentle “it’s none of your business” does the trick. Honestly, they don’t really care! They just want a good teacher. I could count on one hand in ten years the times I have been asked about my personal life, and that includes teaching while pregnant.
loading...
Really? Wow! I’ve been a high school teacher for five years and I dodge personal questions every day!
loading...
As a Teacher I don’t talk about my private life with students! They don’t even know I have a boyfriend. I just simply say to them I’m not here to talk about my personal life. Just because a student asks a question about my life doesn’t mean they have a right to an answer!
loading...
I’m sorry but this is an absolutely ridiculous, inflammatory headline. “You’re all fired”?? Really, why what has changed?? This article talks about a loophole in the discrimination act that already exists… where are all of these people who are being fired under it.
My experience is that what religious organisations actually want from it’s staff is a bit of discretion. I know of 3 unmarried mothers who work in the Catholic school system, they just call themselves, Mrs (Maiden Name).
Of course the institutions don’t want people who are openly flouting their belief structure to be representing them – and in school environments at least, surely you must recognise that at least a fair portion of parents are paying for their children to be schooled in this environment/under this moral code.
Also, while I am not a theology student, I am pretty sure you will find it is not a sin to be a homosexual – it’s the sex that is the sin.
loading...
That’s not discretion, that’s lying.
loading...
I don’t believe use of the prefix Mrs has any biblical meaning. I don’t believe as a Catholic that an ‘unmarried’ mother shouldn’t be able to work in the system or WORSE cover that fact up.
Even if that person is totally devout, and they had sex outside of marriage (a bit the Catholic church only threw in about 400 years ago…was fine before that…) that bore a child and became an ‘unmarried mother’. If they have confessed and made their peace with god, there should be no need to go through a god awful charade of pretending to be married.
I find that quite frightening to be honest.
loading...
What’s so god awful about it? The kids call the teacher Mrs Smith rather than Miss Smith… that’s the extent of the charade.
loading...
What’s so awful about it? The fact that it is a charade! The fact that they feel they need to lie.
loading...
Firstly, I do believe you would need to confess for lying.
Secondly – what about Ms Smith? How exactly do you know the marital status or otherwise of the male teachers?
I’m married. Catholic. Would stick a fork in my eye before calling myself Mrs Anything.
If my catholic school promoted this kind of BS my kids would be out of there in a heartbeat. My own catholic education was all about strong, educated women. It fostered self belief and a sense of social justice. There was very little of this clap trap regarding marital status. In fact my favourite teacher ever, my year 3 teacher, was a lesbian and we all knew. No pretending to be Mrs anything for her. Oh how I miss Pope John Paul and his hands off approach. Sooner this pope shuffles off the better…
loading...
‘I am pretty sure you will find it is not a sin to be a homosexual – it’s the sex that is the sin.’
Oh, well that’s alright then…
loading...
Sorry Zepgirl, I wasn’t agreeing with the fact that it is a sin etc, I’m actually was raised a Catholic and lost my faith in the Church because of their stance on this and other issues.
I was just taking issue with the title which says you can be fired for being Gay. You actually can’t under this exemption, but you could be fired for practising homosexual sex. It’s a technicality but I believe the media should correctly report the facts.
loading...
I totally get where you’re coming from in terms of wanting facts accurately reported, but it’s really splitting hairs to say that homosexuality is okay but sex between homosexuals is not.
loading...
I think you will also find that while “homosexual sex” maybe the sin, there are many people (religious or not) who have issues with homosexuality as a whole.
loading...
Probably wont be a popular comment but I see a lot of the “they can’t do this if they get gov funding” argument thrown around. I know we all pay taxes and that many of us don’t want our tax dollars going to funding the religious organisations. However I’d like to remind people that religious people pay tax too. And I’m sure that they don’t take to happy with their tax dollars going to things like mardi gras.
Not only atheists have jobs you know.
loading...
But the government is non-religious, and has to represent everyone – religious, atheist, not sure, like going to church at Xmas. Last time I checked, a vast number of religious people actually don’t have a problem with homosexuality or mardi gras. Mardi gras is also a HUUUUGE tourism aspect of Sydney, and brings in heaps of money, reliably, every year. And it’s inclusive, anyone can go along to Mardi Gras as long as you are in favour of tolerance and acceptance. Can the same be said of religious organisations?
loading...
Yes but if you do not agree with Mardi Gras and the like then dont go. If you aren’t into religion, dont apply for a job within it’s organisation.
Yes Mardi Gras puts money back into the community but religions also heaps of non for profit orgs out of their churches, like child care centres, opshops, libraries, elderly care homes. they are just the ones I can think of from my childhood church but I am sure there are so many other things that people forget that churches do for communities.
loading...
Actually the difference is Mardi Gras in not seeking to exclude people where some religious organisations that take public funding are.
loading...
I don’t believe that churches actively exclude anyone. If an anti homosexuality group showed up at the mardi gras and tried to join in surely they would be excluded. I just can’t imagine that float being there and nor should it. Respect for the lifestyle choices of mardi gras and also for the catholic school.
loading...
The catholic school I attended was predominantly attended by overseas students most of whom go onto university and then live and work here. Over the years they have attracted thousands of these students and their families, bringing a massive amount of money to the country. In fact the school is now bigger than ever.
loading...
I work in the not for profit world, where the majority of our funding comes from fed and state government. I am lucky enough to work for one of the only med-large not for profits that is not affiliated with a religion. Many of my friends are not. A close friend was bullied, harassed, overlooked for promotion and eventually let go because he was openly gay! The irony was that he was a State Manager of a Mental Health program promoting anti-bullying messages!!!! And many of my friends have who work for the LARGE Not For Profits have to, as part of their job contract, attend daily prayer/worship (often done for 5-10 min at start of work or team meetings). Sorry, from where I sit if the majority of an organisations income comes from the government the workplace as well as their work needs to be separated from religion and religious institutions. So, Jamilla, from an insider in the Not For Profit space, discrimination based on religious beliefs/values/practices are not uncommon amoung most of the big ones (Anglican, Baptist, Uniting amazingly less so Catholic) have become more conservative in last 5-10 years.
On another note, totally agree that Labour needs to go down blazing (and maybe save itself) by standing for labour values of fairness, equity and humanity!!!!!
loading...
Fair point that they receive taxpayer funding… but I think you are overlooking the fact that they receive taxpayer funding to do the jobs that our government is unwilling to do. Until the government decides it wants to do these jobs itself, which we all know it won’t, I don’t think you can run around putting conditions on the organisations that actually ARE willing to do it.
If we are really taking the hard line that they either need to give up their beliefs or the funding, I can assure you which one will come first… then who will provide these services???
loading...
As I said in another comment: Maybe, though, if they stopped giving the $$$ to the churches and giving them exemptions there would be more money available in general for people in need through the welfare system?
loading...
I would disagree with this, as so much money is also raised within the Church to provide services. As well much of the work done by religious organisations is done by volunteers, which means it would cost a lot more for the government to provide the same service.
loading...
Who ever said that this is the Labor Party’s actual policy? Julia Gillard certainly hasn’t. Nor have any of her Cabinet. Isn’t it possible that the bigot Jim Wallace of the absurdist ACL have made these statements as though they are facts and the media (sorry, but including yourself) have taken them as fact and run with them?
loading...
Hi Brad,
The Prime Minister’s Office have said they won’t comment on the discussions they’ve had with the ACL. But there have been reports for some time that this agreement has been reached and until Wallace’s claim is refuted by the PM, I think we can assume it’s the case. And sadly I think it almost certainly is.
J
loading...
I haven’t read any comments from Wallace that suggest PM said the legislation was to allow religious groups to discriminate against gays, unmarried defactos, IVF users etc. Talk about a media beat up. You should know better than putting words into the PM’s mouth if you have worked for her Government. Why not actually ask her office for comment on what the objective is behind this clause in the legislation? Has there been many claims of people being sacked due to being gay, using contraception, undertaking IVF treatment etc? Or just a bunch of hypothetical dreaming?
loading...
Hi Bernadette
Thanks for your comment. I have to say, I take issue with the argument of ‘well how often is this exemption actually used’. I know, and note in the article, that the vast bulk of religious employers wouldn’t dream of exercising their right under this law. But the very fact the ACL is fighting to keep it shows that there are some who wish to exercise that right. And one person dismissed for discriminatory reasons is too many in my book.
Jamila
loading...
I teach in a Catholic School – I live with my boyfriend and a number of other Teachers live with their partners. We had a single Teacher have a baby this year. There are gay members on our staff that whilst not promoted to students it’s no secret amongst the staff. Many Catholic Institutions are more progressive than the traditional Church Teachings and I would be gobsmaked if any of us were fired from our jobs. I’ve never heard of it happening in my 10 Years of teaching in Catholic Schools. In saying that the Church needs to be more progressive or they will continue to lose people. Especially the younger ones. Vatican II brought the Church more up to date with the times. Maybe it’s time there was a Vatican III. I can’t help to think how far the Church as moved from the times of Jesus and the messages he was trying to get across. Jesus wouldn’t have turned his back on or outcast anyone. He was trying to show the people the importance of tolerance and exceptence of everyone.
loading...
So try being an card carrying National Party member and try and get a job with the Labour Party. You won’t get it will you? Of course not, because you don’t fit into their value system. It’s exactly the same thing, stop bashing the church!
loading...
It’s not remotely the same. Political affiliation is a choice. Sexual orientation is not.
loading...
I am bit divided on this one. On one hand if religious organisations want to employ people I get they would like people who exemplify their beliefs.
On the other hand I think religion has to keep up with current social standards. No that long ago people were discriminated against about colour, about social status etc. I am glad that has changed and it would be great if religion wolves along with society to become more tolerant.
loading...
I am religious and I do t agree with this as we live in a secular country. Tisis not fair. All workplaces should be the same, under the same laws. What happens if a Jew works in a catholic company and they need time off for a festival?
loading...
then, as a jew, one would use annual leave and take time off for the holiday. Same way anyone would ask for leave for any important reason that they could not be at work on that day
loading...
I totally 100% support this decision. Not because I am a Labor supporter (which I am, but I would support the Liberals if they did this), not because I’m religious (to the contrary, I am a practicing Atheist), not for any other reason than this;
We are not talking about sacking a Coca Cola worker who drinks a Pepsi.
We are not talking about sacking a Holden worker for driving in a Ford.
We are talking about sacking people who do things that go against what the religious institutions are against. Religion isn’t a hobby; not to those who truly believe. Religion isn’t something that gets thrown around. Religion to the religious is serious. And if you don’t agree DON’T belong to that organisation.
It is NOT for the Church to change its views; it is for the people who disagree with the beliefs of the Church to leave it.
I don’t expect Muslims to celebrate this decision with a bacon roll and a beer. And if they employed someone who repeatedly drank and brought leftovers of last night’s pork roast to work, I think they have the right to sack them. But seriously, would you WANT to work at an Islamic school or mosque if you weren’t a Muslim? I think not.
The Bible might be wrong. In fact I believe it is. But the Church doesn’t. We are not talking about something frivolous like Star Wars (did Han shoot first?), we are talking about dogma. We speaking about ideology that people have based their life on, their lifestyle on, their world, their universe.
It says in the Bible you can’t be gay. It says it in the Koran as well. They need to stick to that. If they truly believe this IS the word of God, or even of his followers from time in antiquity, this cannot be changed.
Do not ask your religion to change. If you don’t subscribe to their point of view (thank you Gordon Sumner), then leave them. Turn your back on them. Walk away.
If we are going to stop this evil empire, all of them, we need to act with our feet. Once this happens, once they are not speaking for the people, once they are not in control, holding us back, stopping us from evolving mentally, compassionately, ethically, then they will see the error of their ways.
Let’s not change religion. Let’s change people’s way of thinking.
loading...
Well said. Summed up exactly what I am thinking.
loading...
The point that was made however is that it is OUR money that is funding some of these groups (through taxes), and if I’m gay, I still have to pay taxes, some of which goes to these groups. Can I opt to not pay as much tax???
loading...
Actually it is the government’s money. You pay taxes to the Government. They decide how it is spent. It is not YOUR money. I wish people would stop calling taxes “my money” when it is not.
loading...
The government is made up of representatives from our community who are elected to make decisions in the community’s best interest. They are also suppose to be the voice of the community. I’m not sure where you got the idea that it is the “governments money”, when it is in fact Australia’s money. If the community is not happy with how it is being spent then they speak out….during an election. Whether the system works or not it is another discussion.
loading...
It may be “our” money funding these institutions but it is also “our” money paying for people who can’t be bothered to get a job and choose the dole instead, people who dodge tax, people who are a burden on our healthcare system etc. etc. etc.
The easiest option seems to be for you to find a place where you can pick and choose how “your” money is spent, good luck with that.
And I would advocate against putting religious organisations in the above category because I believe that predominantly their contribution to society is a good one, not a waste.
loading...
I agree, Darrell, that most religious institutions belong in the Dark Ages and that due to the nature of dogmatic, faith-based belief systems, we can’t expect them to change anytime soon. Surely one of the main roles of our government is to keep these scoundrels honest and force them to play by the rules like everyone else, though? No person or organisation is ‘sacred’. Nobody is beyond criticism. And if they wish to engage in bigoted behaviour – remove their taxation privileges. Simple!
loading...
“But seriously, would you WANT to work at an Islamic school or mosque if you weren’t a Muslim?” Yeah, I agree with this. I don’t know about working for other parts of the churches, but if you want to work in religious schools, you have to agree to support and uphold the ethos and beliefs of the organisation and it’s guiding religion, and promote them in your role.
I don’t agree though that they should get tax exemptions and government funding and the, er, blessing, of the government to do so.
I think it’s tricky because the government relies on the churches to provide so much welfare support, so they need to get money from the government to do that, and I think it doesn’t matter what your beliefs are to get help from them (I hope so, anyway – when I was in need of help I was never compelled to profess a faith or take one up), and there are agencies that do a good job in that regard, no question. Maybe, though, if they stopped giving the $$$ to the churches and giving them exemptions there would be more money available in general for people in need through the welfare system?
loading...
I am an atheist and I worked in an Islamic school. I kept my ‘religious’ views to myself and respected theirs.all was fine.
loading...
It is disappointing if it is true, and seems to be alienating those the ALP profess to support. Jamila in regrads to your line about if Labor go down, then go down doing something good (sic) it reminds me a a great line from the Lion in Winter. The princes are about to die and one questions why the should stand when they about to fall (be killed). Prince Richard replies “When the fall is all that is left, it matters a great deal”
Perhaps Labor should reconsider and go down fighting a fight that will do good, as it will matter a great deal.
loading...
Religious bigots reign supreme it seems. Very disappointed Prime Minister, and I’m one of your biggest fans. I’ll always vote Labor, but this stinks.
loading...
I’m not religious (in fact, I’m an atheist), but I feel that this piece unfairly portrays the Catholic Church and other religious organisations, as if they all conduct witch hunts for anyone who doesn’t neatly fit their values.
You’re smarter than this, Jamila. You could have written about this issue without making inflammatory comments and cheap shots about religion.
loading...
I agree – there is something in the tone of this piece that doesn’t sit right with me.
loading...
Brilliantly said! I couldn’t agree with you more.
loading...
I totally agree.
loading...
I tend to agree. I am an Atheist, but was brought up a Catholic and went to a Catholic school. My experience is these kind of discrimination are rarely enforced unless the parish priest is ultra conservative. Probably good reason to remove the legal loopholes.
loading...
Totally agree, well said.
loading...
Hi Lou
Thanks for the comment, sorry to hear you didn’t enjoy the article. It’s an opinion piece and of course it’s just my opinion – there are an infinite number of those as always
I honestly feel I made clear that I think the bulk of religious organisations in Australia are unlikely to take advantage of the exemption and wouldn’t be interested in doing so.
However, the very fact the ACL are campaigning for its continued existence makes me seriously uncomfortable. As I said above, one person who is treated unfairly because of this law is too many and giving the right to discriminate to an organisation that gets tax payer funding is repugnant.
I take your point about the tone. I try to avoid the sarcasm as much as I can (although I am prone to it!) But this particular issue had me seriously distraught, it goes against the core values of the ALP and what I think is a core value of Australia – which is tolerance and celebration of difference rather than discrimination against it.
My frustration came through a bit too strongly perhaps
Jamila
loading...
Thanks, Jamila. I genuinely enjoy your writing and really like that you’re willing to engage in conversation about a range of issues. It can’t be easy having your name on the byline while everyone else gets to remain anonymous! I’m looking forward to hearing more from you as we head closer towards the election! ; )
loading...
Thanks for this comment.
Not sure if I agree with you re the article but you’ve got me thinking.
I think mainstream media and online tend to downplay religious freedom in Australia. Progressive media also appears to be dominated by those who are not religious and who think mainstream religion is, to put it bluntly, a joke.
BUT often, the views expressed as just as dogmatic (its my way or the highway) as the church’s views are. The Catholic Church is allowed to express its views. You may or may not agree with them, you may think they are downright stupid, but that is beside the point.
I am not a religious person at ALL. But I do respect people’s right to follow their faith. Like I also respect people’s right to marry who they want, have sex with who they want and say what they want.
The “use of tax payers dollars” argument is a tired one and isn’t convincing anyone. Religious individuals pay tax like everyone else.
Let’s turn the conversation to a far more interesting dimension – how far does the right to express our religious views go? How can we properly draw the line? Does the “domino effect” hold true in this scenario? If we let religious organisations discriminate in regards to employment then what’s next? Is the right to religious expression inalienable?
This is what I want to be talking about!
loading...
Religious beliefs should never be above the law and the anti-discrimination laws should apply equally to all religions.
I am getting so disheartened by the disappearance or non-application of common sense in so many areas of government. All the political parties just seem like one big party at the moment.
loading...
Yes this! I am tired of religious institutions that think they are above the law.
loading...
So should business owners who don’t like a particular race, a gender, those considered “old”, a hair colour, etc all be allowed to not employ those people either? They’d simply be standing up for what they believe in, no?
loading...
No, they shouldn’t be “allowed to” but I bet employers do it all the time! They just don’t have a legal loophole in which to do it, so they keep it on the down low!
loading...
I think the target market is what leads employers to make their decision. I would have no problem seeing an older person working at supre but is it likely? No. An obese person at Gucci? There must be a reason for this. I wish it were different yes but isn’t this also discrimination? Do we want the person at McDonald’s telling us the burgers are better at hungry jacks? Discrimination is such a strong word as opposed to the right person for the right job.
loading...
Hope they get rid of the Womens only Gyms while they are at it.
loading...
Why?
loading...
Because women’s only Gym’s engage in discriminatory practices.
It ain’t rocket science.
loading...
Since when do Fernwood get government funding?
loading...
I love this law. I believe that religous institutions and places run by them should not have to employ people whos values they do not agree if. If you don’t like it don’t work for them. Simple. And they are not discriminating. They are simply standing up for what they believe in.
loading...
Yay! Bigots standing up for what they believe in and receiving taxpayers money to do so.
loading...
I am not “a bigot”. I simply have different beliefs to you. Sorry that people disagree with you.
loading...
Ha! People like Jim Wallace are bigots.
loading...
Religious bigots are on par with racists in my opinion. Tolerance and acceptance is the key.
loading...
You are more than welcome to have different beliefs but when they start to infringe on the rights of others this is when it becomes discrimination & bigotry. Why wouldn’t you want a more tolerant & inclusive society?
loading...
Then don’t take taxpayers money. I don’t want my taxes going to organisations that promote hatred
loading...
If they get tax payers money & tax exemptions they must be required to comply with the laws taxpayers have to follow. The fact they request this type of exemption proves they have been morality or sense of social justice. The Jesus of the new testament they claim to follow would weep.
loading...
I find your language offensive. And very, very wrong.
loading...
but if they receive a. single. CENT. of public money, then ABSOLUTELY. NOT.
loading...
Lots of organisations and individuals receive government funding. Should a person receiving unemployment benefits also have their values dictated by the public?
loading...
They kind of do, already, Lou.
loading...
Discrimination on tax payers dollars? I think not!
loading...
I guess we should also ban funding for select entry schools, women and mens gyms and many more places that ‘discriminate’ while we are at it!
loading...
I hardly think the Melbourne club or Fernwood are receiving taxpayer dollars.
loading...
gyms get funding ??
loading...
Select entry schools do not discriminate based on religion, gender, race etc. And since when has Fernwood been tax payer funded?
You’re missing the point.
loading...
Like George would say, “you wanna get nuts, let’s get nuts”. Seriously, womens and men’s gyms, like fernwood, aren’t funded by the government are they. BIG difference.
loading...
Not to mention that men who work for the government dont even get the same amount of parental leave as the womwn do!
loading...
Yes they do, if they choose to be the one that receives the 18 weeks paid parental leave while their partner returns to work after 2 weeks partner leave.
loading...
?????? PARENTAL Leave applies to either father OR mother…hence the name PARENTAL, not MATERNITY. It applies to the primary caregiver. which can actually be the father, depending on circumstance, but is most often the mother.
There’s now also Dad & Partner pay or leave…bad wording, should actually be called simply Partner or Co-Parent pay, but really just applies to the non-primary caregiver for a couple of weeks so they can provide extra support and bonding….do you honestly expect the govt to fund for both parents to be off work/on benefits for 18wks????
loading...
Hitler, The Taliban, and the mass murders of The Congo had strong beliefs and tried to enforce those.
loading...
So this should work the other way too then? If you are religious and make this known at work in any way, maybe wearing a cross or talking about church that you can be fired if the business owners are not religious???
Are you happy if it works both ways??
loading...
Yes I would be fine with that if I knew going into the job that that was the belief of my employees.
loading...
So then you agree that this should work both ways. If you are religious and go to work and somehow show your beliefs by say wearing a cross or talking of attending church on the weekend then you too can be fired if your boss doesn’t share your beliefs??
Welcome to a hideous world! But you can’t have it one way without the other being ok.
loading...
I am so angry and disappointed with the Labor party and Julia over this. It goes against Labor ideals and also against common decency. I could just about accept discrimination if particular values were core to doing a job, for example if working as a youth worker for a church. But allowing discrimination simply because it offends the sensibilities of some members of a religion is beyond the pale. Furious! And will be writing to my local member.
loading...
I am pretty disgusted that Julia would even entertain the idea of consulting with Jim Wallace!
Churches should not be allowed to discriminate. That is society going backwards in my view.
loading...
Agreed.
This lil’ churchy does not support the ACL and supports anti-discrimination laws!
You got this one wrong Labour – so very, very dissapointed!
loading...
I’m disappointed too.
loading...
Are we sure that Julia agreed with the bigot? Or are we just taking his word for it at this stage. He wouldn’t be the first person to leave a meeting and lie about the outcome in order to push his own agenda.
If she did, then my next vote will be informal because I sure as hell won’t be supporting the bigotted (sorry LNP) party.
loading...
There are plenty of other parties to vote for – you don’t have to go informal.
loading...
“Labor needs to remind the public what they stand for and show Australians that they mean it when they talk about fairness and equality for all.”
No, Labor need to go back to their original tenets and stop pandering to the conservative vote, realise that people are swinging at both ends of their spectrum towards the Greens, and not just the traditional Lib/Labor swinging, and actually stand for something that is in keeping with the leftist basis of the party. At the moment they’re Liberal lite, and it’s inspiring no-one. Until they do that, they’ll lose more seats to the Greens. True believers are starting to really doubt and walk, Labor. Stop ignoring this, and you might have a chance at the election. The way they’re going now, they’re handing the LNP government on a platter.
loading...
Very well said, Kris!!
loading...
Thanks, Siobhan! The thing I have trouble with is that what I’ve said is hardly radical, and I am clearly not the only person to think this kind of thing. Yet they keep ploughing on! Bizarre.
loading...
Booooo Labor. Massive thumbs down from me. It’s time to stop the churches rampant discrimination. I expect better from the government.
loading...
I live in Tasmania, where our state Labor government intervened long ago on this issue. In Tasmania it is illegal for any institution, including religious organisations, to discriminate. Hooray!
Our society has not crumbled, there is not open devil worship in the street. Come on federal Labor, step up!
loading...