It's not as if Gillards promises are worth anything. I doubt the ACL have taken anything she has said on board considering she has no power or authority within the party.The Greens have accused the Australian Christian Lobby of trying to dictate government policy and demanded Prime Minister Julia Gillard reveal what she might have promised religious leaders about a draft bill bringing together national anti-discrimination laws.
I said exactly the same thing the other day. Why should these profitable religious businesses be tax free and not subject to our anti-discrimination laws? What makes them so special?The Australian Greens says any religious groups that get taxpayer funds should be barred from taking advantage of anti-discrimination loopholes, as new argument flares about their right to choose staff.
Australian Christian Lobby head Jim Wallace says talk of an uproar about the issue is "a complete beat-up" and a sign of rising "militant atheism".
The Greens have accused the Australian Christian Lobby of trying to dictate government policy and demanded Prime Minister Julia Gillard reveal what she might have promised religious leaders about a draft bill bringing together national anti-discrimination laws.
Under current exemptions to legislation, religious groups can reject employees for being gay, single parents or living "in sin".
The Senate committee examining the draft bill and 585 submissions will hold public hearings in Sydney and Melbourne next week.
...in fact, I'm still giggling.
mantra wrote:In 2001 Howard changed our anti-discrimination and racial hatred laws to ensure the onus of proof was up to the victim. All Gillard is doing is reversing the law - so the proof of innocence rests on the perpetrator.
Cos they too were guilty until proven otherwise.
skippy wrote:So dickheads that believe in fairies in the sky can run the countries agenda but those that accept the reality of evolution can not, typical fascists.
Under the previous changes - the average person couldn't prove vilification, many of them not having the finances or resources to prove their case. The courts were empty and businessses were happy, but the individual wasn't. Workchoices exacerbated this problem.So effectively what you are saying is that it's Guilty until proven innocent, this opposed to there being the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?
And you call this progressive?
You can word it how you please, and justify it also... but at the end of the day, it's GUILTY until proven INNOCENT not the other way round as it should be.....back to the 16th century we go...mantra wrote:Under the previous changes - the average person couldn't prove vilification, many of them not having the finances or resources to prove their case. The courts were empty and businessses were happy, but the individual wasn't. Workchoices exacerbated this problem.So effectively what you are saying is that it's Guilty until proven innocent, this opposed to there being the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?
And you call this progressive?
For example Mel - if you were broke and you had a gay son who was incredibly intelligent and would be an asset to any company - but the only decent job available was in the admin of the Catholic church, your son would be knocked back simply because he was gay. It's irrelevant that he was christened a Catholic. He wouldn't have a leg to stand on - but with the changes - now he will.
The above is hyperthetical.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 103 guests