Sep 13, 2017

Attention religious bakers: you may not discriminate against LGBTI people. It is the law.

There is no good reason in legal or social policy for a religious body to get a free pass on discrimination.

Michael Bradley — Managing partner at Marque Lawyers

Michael Bradley

Managing partner at Marque Lawyers

Heard this on The Drum: “Same-sex marriage opens the door to a whole host of civil and other liabilities for religious associations and individuals.”

Bollocks. Let me speak some truth to bullshit here.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

25 thoughts on “Attention religious bakers: you may not discriminate against LGBTI people. It is the law.

  1. waiting dog

    What is about bakers that makes so homophobic. Is it something in the dough?

    1. Grant

      It’s all that (k)needing …..

    2. AR

      Perhaps it’s their long experience with yeast, all that uncontrolled breeding, hence the insistence that unleavened bread be used at the altar.

    3. klewso

      I reckon they wouldn’t have much of a turnover if they’d eclair their roll in this bun-fight?

      1. Dog's Breakfast

        Very droll Klewso, very droll.

  2. Venise Alstergren

    I’m glad to hear your opinion, “As organised religion’s hold on society loosens and personal conviction (faith-based or otherwise) becomes a more powerful force, ” Because it is laughable the taxpayer has to support-as tax free entities-religious organisations. In fact it makes me wonder if they aren’t getting stronger all the time.

    1. Bill Hilliger

      If the U.S. is any guide they probably are getting stronger all the time. Just look at the Hillsong happy clapper lunatics with their charlatan of a leader.

  3. Peter Wileman

    Give us Freedom from Religion, and then tax the lot of ’em.

    1. CML

      Agree! As an atheist, I object to all this ‘special treatment’ for those who are loony enough to believe all those stories about fairies at the bottom of the garden!!

    2. aorta

      A worthwhile compromise that may have broad appeal is to tax religious income but allow churches tax reductions on running costs (of course) and then add a bit more tax reduction (110%? 150%?) for expenditure on socially useful but not proselytising projects (hospitals, aged care, streetwork, poverty reduction, etc). If they’re doing as much good as they claim to be, they should end up paying little or no tax. If they’re doing tons of good, they might even get a refund.

      1. PDGFD1

        There are other issues with ‘exemptions’.
        Fore example – are you aware that taxpayer funded (and under your model, taxpayer re-imbursed) medical facilities run by a certain religious hierarchy can, and do, refuse a number of diagnostic tests to women. Especially pregnant women.
        Same goes for Universities owned and run by the same hierarchy – they don’t actually teach their students that which might ‘impinge’ on belief. Ditto goes for law schools – the religious rules can over ride the civil law of the land.
        We really need all of these things looked into properly.
        But first – we need to strengthen the secular nature of law, for everyone, of all creeds and none.

  4. rhwombat

    Religion is just a subset of politics, albeit with a supernatural rationale.

  5. klewso

    One more whoopsie on the slippery slope to the end of civilisation as we NO it.
    Look what happened after slavery was abolished? When people started eating fat, shell-fish, swine, rabbits? Giving women the vote? Recognising Aborigines as actual human beings?
    What next? Anthropomorphic climate change is real?

  6. Bill Hilliger

    “the Bible doesn’t say Adam and Steve” But it does say a lot about JESUS with his male disciples, …all male, he hung around with them all his life. Makes an unkind sceptic wonder whether JESUS might have been gay, closet or otherwise. The bible implies he did love all and sundry, and yes that would have to include gays. Ask yourself if JESUS were to return today what would he say: yes or no? Furthermore many people cant help but wonder whether he would be ashamed to be associated with some to todays so called Christians.

    1. Marion Wilson

      The bible was written by men. Men acknowledge the actions of men and the significant place men hold in society so the whole story of Jesus is skewed towards him and male associates. It was to women that his return from the dead was first revealed, this, the most significant event, and the foundation of the Christian religion excluded men. To this day men write mainly about men and their wonders to behold, look at the monuments. That is why the bible is about men and their interpretation of Christianity.

  7. Draco Houston

    I agree that it would have been better for them to let it sail through. 13 years on from Howard preemptively banning SSM we have seen de-facto relationships strengthened (to ameliorate the problem of unequal rights), and states offering civil unions (an attempt at ‘just don’t call it marriage’).

    Both offer a path to the actual abolition of ‘marriage’. If the mess isn’t fixed with marriage you can expect both alternatives to be strengthened until marriage loses its primacy.

    Should have just passed it, mates. I think the Queensland LNP might have realized this was a problem for the churches, they tried to wind back civil unions because it was too ‘marriage-like’. Removed the ceremony and changed the name. This lasted as long as the Newman government. So much for ‘just don’t call it marriage’!

  8. AR

    Nobody ever accused the religiously deluded of being very bright but, like drug lords and other big donors with more power than principle, they have too many people in positions of power & influence under their thumb.
    It will be a brave pollie who seeks to remove the legislative protections from taxation & equity from the god botherers.

  9. PDGFD1

    I agree with you… a lot of people are becoming aware of the semi-hidden nature of religious hierarchies’ influence over secular law.
    Until recently, few young people were aware that abortion is still on the criminal statutes in several states. The recent failures to change this in both QLD and NSW really woke some people up.
    Same goes with the calls for assisted dying in SA – hamstrung by religious hierarchy influence and interference.
    The elderly, and especially the boomers are going to resent the sorts of changes in law being stymied on the basis of personal belief.
    I was horrified to discover that a certain taxpayer-funded facilities don’t have to offer a number of diagnostic tests to women, i.e. anything that might reveal foetal abnormalities etc.
    The ACL are doing the legwork for a lot of hidden faces at the moment – they are using The Marriage Act as a foothold to bring in even more ‘exemptions’, but that really is only the tip of the iceberg.
    I think it’s time we turned their ‘slippery slope’ argument against them, before every step in the progress of lawmaking has to be ‘run through the filter’ of whether one religion (or another) approves of it or not.

  10. John Hall

    A literal interpretation of Genesis in the Old Testament suggests that Eve must have been a transsexual – after all God took Adams rib to make Eve. It also means that Adam convinced himself to eat the apple of knowledge. Done – the Bible does provide ‘evidence’ that gay relationships are OK. It also is ‘evidence’ that all the problems in the world are the fault of males. I think Tony Abbott should take a real note of that and retire to s life of Testicular Contemplation or tighter Budgie Snugglers.

    1. lachelley

      intersex rather than trans. male dna with female reproductive ability

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details