This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Gay support group gets straight 'no' from Brethren

Gay support group gets straight 'no' from Brethren - Comments

Quine's Avatar Comment 1 by Quine

<!-- Be sure tags are closed -->

But the law is stacked against the young people: religious groups in Victoria are allowed to discriminate against anyone as long as it is done due to "genuine religious beliefs or principles".


I doubt that they would win, but it would not be difficult to put together a brief that took apart the "genuine" aspect.

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:24:00 UTC | #230853

Apathy personified's Avatar Comment 2 by Apathy personified

By letting one group get away with homophobia, it opens the door to all of them.
There is the issue about whether a private business is allowed to deny service to a customer or group of customers - but an organisation that benefits from charity status and pays no tax, i don't see how they are allowed to discriminate.

religious groups in Victoria are allowed to discriminate against anyone as long as it is done due to "genuine religious beliefs or principles".

How the HELL can you really tell the difference between genuine belief and someone faking it?

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:30:00 UTC | #230856

beanson's Avatar Comment 3 by beanson

Jesus wants us to use our genitalia in the correct way, there are certain orifices that one must not put a penis in.

Yea for Jesus!

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:33:00 UTC | #230857

Quine's Avatar Comment 4 by Quine

<!-- Be sure tags are closed -->Comment #243743 by Apathy personified:

How the HELL can you really tell the difference between genuine belief and someone faking it?

I was going after showing that what they believe is not genuine, even if they genuinely believe it.

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:39:00 UTC | #230859

smokedherb's Avatar Comment 5 by smokedherb

"The resort is exempt from paying taxes because it is run by a church."

U.S. government providing tax breaks to institutions that discriminate against gays. Very American.

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:55:00 UTC | #230860

Quine's Avatar Comment 7 by Quine

<!-- Be sure tags are closed -->smokedherb, you do know that this story is from Australia, right?

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:01:00 UTC | #230863

Apathy personified's Avatar Comment 6 by Apathy personified

Quine,

I was going after showing that what they believe is not genuine, even if they genuinely believe it.

Ha - fair enough, although i somehow doubt that any judge would allow a court case to take that route, no matter what evidence you could present.

What i really don't like is the deliberate ambiguous nature of the statement (religious groups in Victoria are allowed to discriminate against anyone as long as it is done due to genuine religious beliefs or principles") - it leaves the law open to abuse.

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:01:00 UTC | #230862

VrijzinnigMan's Avatar Comment 8 by VrijzinnigMan

... the resort owners, the Christian Brethren church, deplore their lifestyle.


Lifestyle? Here is what the American Psychological Association (APA) has to say about that: "... most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

(Source: http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html)

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:03:00 UTC | #230864

robotaholic's Avatar Comment 9 by robotaholic

What about love the sinner but hate the sin?

mhhm

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:04:00 UTC | #230865

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 10 by mordacious1

The problem seems to be that in order to own one of these camps, you have to be tax-exempt. Who else could afford to run them? So they are mostly owned by churches and the scouts. If these organizations are then allowed to discriminate freely, some people would not have the opportunity to use such camps at all.

You can't stop people from being homophobic or racist by legislation, but you can and should remove their tax-free status.

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:10:00 UTC | #230866

noamzur's Avatar Comment 11 by noamzur

< rant from an annoyed (heterosexual) anti-theist > You'd think the religious have better things to do than care about what some people do or don't do in private... yet I am proven wrong by this naive presumption time and time again.
I say let everybody have fun anyway they like as long as nobody gets hurt (at least unwillingly). Some of history's greatest persons were homo- or bisexual, as well as, of course, many heterosexuals. What is important to history is what they did about their respective fields, not who they shared a bedroom with. < /rant >
< annoyance > I don't live in Australia, but still it's the principle I am annoyed with - prove that you are a senseless, bigoted, often racist dogmatic in-group and get away with anything... even be rewarded with tax-exemptions. I'd like ti put < / annoyance > here, but it will still take a while, I'm afraid.

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:12:00 UTC | #230867

Quine's Avatar Comment 12 by Quine

<!-- Be sure tags are closed -->For example, if the church of the FSM refused to allow use by groups with any association with the Admiralty (it's that pirate thing), should they keep their tax-free status, just because they genuinely believe this is part of their religion?

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:22:00 UTC | #230869

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 13 by Cartomancer

Is it just me who noticed the irony of a gay rights group appealing to something called the Victorian Equal Opportunities and Human Rights Commission? I imagine a group of tweedy old gents with beards and chronic gout, sat in the oak-panelled drawing room of a country house drinking vintage port and discussing the governance of the empire. Sadly I suspect that Victorian values will predominate in their decision too - though it might be a laugh if the plaintiffs all turn up in bright purple suits a la the trial of Oscar Wilde.

Ironically enough one of my beloved's middle names is Wedderburn...

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:34:00 UTC | #230874

Wosret's Avatar Comment 14 by Wosret

Yet another example of religious rights to discriminate trumping human rights.

When are we going to stop allotting special privileges to those that profess believing insane things?

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:46:00 UTC | #230881

root2squared's Avatar Comment 15 by root2squared

But the law is stacked against the young people: religious groups in Victoria are allowed to discriminate against anyone as long as it is done due to "genuine religious beliefs or principles".


It's astonishing to me we are not allowed to disriminate against people based on their religioius beliefs, but that people can discriminate based on their religious beliefs.

For example, we should be able to disriminate when hiring. If I was hiring for an engineering/scientific position, and if I had to pick between an atheist and a religious person, I wish I could legally reject the religious person because of his beliefs.

EDIT: Even though I think this is perfectly reasonable, in the current scenario, it would be looked upon as religious persecution! In which case, I guess I'm all for it.

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:50:00 UTC | #230882

Raiko's Avatar Comment 16 by Raiko

Kind of dumb for them to book with a Christian place, but I still demand the right for every group to discriminate based on their personal taste.

Like - if there's a hotel owned by a local cat owner club, they may not allow booking to anyone who owns a dog, if it displeases them.

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:20:00 UTC | #230888

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 17 by mordacious1

Raiko

As I stated above: Check into who owns these camps. Notice that they ended up at the YMCA, the C stands for "christian". Without the tax exemption, the churches would not have a market on these camps.

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:29:00 UTC | #230889

mdowe's Avatar Comment 18 by mdowe

Faced with this kind of legal system, 'Way Out' should simply re-brand themselves a Christian Youth Support group. As long as they can say that they 'genuinely believe they are a Christian support group', I guess they can define it anyway they like.

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:34:00 UTC | #230891

AoClay's Avatar Comment 19 by AoClay

ugh, I hate 'love the sinner and hate the sin,' since they're just lying to themselves. When you hate somebody, you hate what they've done.

As for homophobia, I think it's a bit odd how it's accepted waaaaaaaaaay more than, say, racism.

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:35:00 UTC | #230892

CocoCantare's Avatar Comment 20 by CocoCantare

Here's the thing: What people do in the privacy of their own bedroom does not stay private. Homosexual men and women are seen out and about, showing affection to each other, trying to get married, and trying to adopt children. This is what is most threatening to the conservative christians.

Their children view these things and the parents are afraid their children will become homosexual because it would seem so normal if they can get married and have families like everybody else. In other words, they don't want any influence of homosexuals on their children. I've heard it from the mouth of my own sister, a staunch southern baptist.

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:00:00 UTC | #230898

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 21 by mordacious1

Coco

Religious people were homophobic long before gays "came out of the closet". It's in the bible, it's wrong.

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:10:00 UTC | #230901

petermun's Avatar Comment 22 by petermun

So what - who the hell are the Christian Brethren anyway? Any evidence as to how Jesus used his genitalia given that all his disciples were, reportedly, male? So bloody what!

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:10:00 UTC | #230902

thrutraffic's Avatar Comment 23 by thrutraffic

Yeah, right on. I don't recall ever reading where jesus left any of his desciples' behind. He faithfully "hung" right "in" there with them.

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:50:00 UTC | #230913

CocoCantare's Avatar Comment 24 by CocoCantare

Yes, Mordacious (or is it Cpt. Obvious?;o)), I know. That's how I was raised. But what I hear from the dreaded side of that arena in this day and age is how they don't want the influence on their poor, innocent children. They actually think that homosexuality is a disease one can catch. My sister-in-law actually said she doesn't want her children making friends with children who have two mommies or two daddies. It would become normalized and, therefore, accepted, and her children would be influenced by that. Oh, the horror!

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:56:00 UTC | #230915

King of NH's Avatar Comment 25 by King of NH

I thought Jesus was gay. I mean, he's the guy that walked all around the desert with just 12 other men, right? Never got lucky with a woman? No children? Remember that he turned water to wine (diffcult) instead of water to beer (easy). Not to type cast or be calling out stereotypes, but if Jesus was straight, so is Hagard.

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:10:00 UTC | #230916

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 26 by Bonzai

Coco

Here's the thing: What people do in the privacy of their own bedroom does not stay private. Homosexual men and women are seen out and about, showing affection to each other, trying to get married, and trying to adopt children. This is what is most threatening to the conservative christians.


By that standard do heterosexuals keep what they do in the bed room in private? For one thing I haven't seen car and beer commercials with alluring, suggestive gay sex themes prominently displayed on TV and billboards.

Their children view these things and the parents are afraid their children will become homosexual because it would seem so normal if they can get married and have families like everybody else. In other words, they don't want any influence of homosexuals on their children. I've heard it from the mouth of my own sister, a staunch southern baptist.


Well twenty years ago they would be afraid of seeing mixed race couples and god forbids, with children. Moreover, what's wrong if their children do turn out to be gay?

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:12:00 UTC | #230918

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 27 by Bonzai

Watch the South Park episode where Butters was labeled as "bi-curious" and sent to a Jesus Camp to be "straightened out". :)

http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/1102/

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:18:00 UTC | #230920

Wosret's Avatar Comment 28 by Wosret

24. Comment #243804 by CocoCantare

Clearly that is just post hoc rationalizations based on their ideas that homosexuality is wrong, which is founded in their religion.

The reasoning that follows from their foundation is of little interest, because their foundations are deeply flawed.

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:19:00 UTC | #230921

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 29 by mordacious1

Coco

Don't call me Captain. I've always worked hard to earn my keep. (runs for door)

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:22:00 UTC | #230924

CocoCantare's Avatar Comment 30 by CocoCantare

Bonzai, Yer preachin' to the choir ma friend! I was just presenting a view of why they (Brethren Christians)probably don't want homosexuals gathering anywhere near their property.

Mordacious,
"Don't call me Captain. I've always worked hard to earn my keep. (runs for door)"

I'm not offended. My husband's a Navy Lt. . . he flies Lot 10's (translation: VERY OLD jets!) so don't get him started on the air force cpt.s' golf courses!

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:41:00 UTC | #230931