From the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney regarding homosexual ‘discrimination’:
“Personally I remain concerned about the impact of the gay lifestyle on our community, and I don’t believe any of us should be forced to accept it,” Dr Jensen said on ABC radio.
Don’t speak too soon. Seems there is a serious undermining of religious freedom in this country, brought on mostly by the homosexual lobby and their friends in state quasi-courts. The NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal ruled recently that:
Homosexuality as an intolerable sin was not a doctrine of Christianity, the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal ruled last month, because there were many dissenting views on the subject among Christian groups generally, and specifically within the Uniting Church.
So we now have these de facto kangaroo courts effectively telling religious organisations what doctrines they can and cannot believe in and as a result, what services and membership restrictions they can impose. When your entire world view is secular, rights and wrongs have limited meaning, all truth is relative so discrimination becomes the catch phrase for any one who dares to point out a moral wrong. From the ‘court’ ruling itself, with regards to a homosexual couple who were attempting to be foster parents through the Wesley Mission:
142 Given the diversity of views among adherents of the Christian religion about homosexuality, the prohibition against homosexual foster carers applied by Wesley Mission cannot be said to be necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of the Christian religion.
143 Similarly if the alternative definition were to be applied it could not be said that the prohibition against homosexual foster carers is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of the religion of the Uniting Church. In reaching that conclusion we note the range of views within the Church on the issue of homosexuality. We also note the evidence that a designated agency operated by the Uniting Church (not Wesley Mission) has authorised as ‘authorised carers’ persons who are openly homosexual and placed children in their care. There is no evidence that this has caused injury to the religious susceptibilities of the members of the Uniting Church.
Section 56 of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act provides an exemption on religious grounds on the condition that:
(d) any … act or practice of a body established to propagate religion that conforms to the doctrines of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of that religion.
Firstly, the court defines the religious standing of the church (decides what religion it is, even if the Church objects to the ruling) and then establishes or tells the Church what their religious view on a matter is. In this case the tribunal rules that homosexuality dose not go against ‘religious susceptibilities’ in the Christian world. They do this based on the experience of the Uniting Church and their acceptance of homosexual foster parents.
So because there happens to be a favourable minority view of homosexuality (the Uniting Church), within the Christian religion (which is a pretty broad category but the court decides), the state can force the homosexual world view on church operations because such a decision will not upset the religious susceptibilities of everyone in the religion (there is always bound to be someone that will disagree with their own church or with another denomination), regardless of what the leadership or majority of the religion or churches members might have to say on the matter. So the fact that the within Christian world there are various conflicting denominations is irrelevant. Religion is defined in the broadest sense to provide the best outcome for the quasi-court’s secular friends, the homosexual lobby.
Is this religious freedom? I think not.