Religious schools in Victoria to lose the right to sack LGBTQ staff
By - CeilingBacon
Good. Tax payer dollars shouldn't fund bigotry.
Someone tell the PM
They tried but they weren’t sure where he’s taking his weekly holiday
His non essential you sure he just isn’t just building a make shift office for the tv. So he can stay on vacation. Edit: thinking of the simpsons episode where the mayor gose away and has a make shift office on the beach :)
Holding Dutton's hose
> shouldn't fund bigotry.
100% on the money.
And they should get 0.00% of the money.
Or religion in general.
Thata what they said haha
That’s a seperate issue.
If funding is the issue, take away their funding, not one of their core organisational purposes
I disagree that discriminating against LGBT people is one of their “core organisational purposes”
And if it were, that would be a terrible organisation that has no place teaching children, not one that should be granted special rights.
But having staff model living according to their religious values might be though.
And those values might involve chastity, monogamy and heterosexuality among other things.
You don’t have to agree with those values, but they should have the right to be wrong
If those values are illegal, then fuck your right to be wrong. Justifying vilifying specific folks because of faith is no excuse.
Get a better faith.
No no. Keep your faith. Just fuck off to some deserted island and practice all the shit you want with no help from civilised society (or at least a society that’s trying to become civilised)
Ideally, we would just stop funding to any religious organisation and end their tax-exempt status then they can do whatever the fuck they want I don't care. But while they are receiving even a cent of government money they shouldn't be exempt from anti-discrimination laws.
Not one cent of taxpayer money should fund their bigotry.
That’s a reasonable view
They might have the right to be wrong, but not to do wrong, and firing LBTGQ+ staff because of their sexual orientation is wrong. They should be subject to all anti-discrimination laws, regardless of whether we are funding them, but definitely if we are funding them.
Right to be wrong is not equivalent to backing them in sacking staff for having different personal values.
So long as they are not shagging at work, same as heterosexual people.
This is inexcusable discrimination against people of faith.
How dare a the government require religious people to adhere to the exact same rules as the faithless and everyone else.
Almost had me there until your last sentence 😝
I was prepared to be negged into oblivion. :)
Could be worse.
Could be pegged into oblivion. Which would annoy the religious schools..
Don't be too sure about that. Some of their staff and graduates probably pay handsomely for pegging.
*Runs into the distance whilst aggressively waving an Akubra.*
Some people just intuitively knows how to do sarcasm... At least until nut jobs say "how dare the government require religious people adhere to the same rules" in earnest.
Or even their "love thy neighbour" and "do unto others" philosophies...
Its OK to be an bigot when your God allows you to.
Andrews has been really good to the LGBT community which is one of the reasons why he has my support
It's because the progressive pressure comes from Fiona Patten not the greens allowing the left to run an effective inside/outside strategy that produces progressive outcomes.
She frontrun's issues and brings them into the political debate and it doesn't matter how much flak she gets because she doesn't have to try win marginal seats.
Then after the issues have been normalized labor can pick them up as "just common sense" and work through the stakeholders to get them implemented.
It's the good cop/bad cop routine the greens need to learn to play federally if they ever want to get anything done.
> productive at implementing progressive policies
With the glaring exception of electric vehicles.
The thing is the tax isn't even egregious in the long term.
It's that it's a stupid tax to have in place now.
And if the issue is "But revenue will dwindle as people move across" make it so that it is codified such that as electric vehicle usage increases and there are more in the second hand market that the tax goes up later. Don't add a further cost to the industry while it's growing. Add it to the industry once it's fleshed out. And make it clear to the industry and investment that it's coming.
Many people believe the move was done to try and beat the feds to tapping into that revenue source. Feds get the fuel excise tax currently so it was the Victorian governments way of saying that moving forward they will be taking that revenue pool off the feds hands.
Yeah but again you can put the law into place and have it say
from 0-20% EV registrations we charge nothing, from 20-30% we charge a pittance, from 30-50 we'll charge X, from 50+% We'll charge Y.
I'm not sure that would stop the feds from getting in first though, like ultimately it would be the state that would come under heat as the 20% mark begins to approach, they would be the ones the media would target to avoid double taxation. At least this way they have got in first with the EV, are using the money to put back into EVs in the way of charging stations and a subsidy.
The feds will be able to jump on board with import taxes and something like the luxury car tax, which probably applies to all EV's already.
But, beyond that, fuel excise will be lost, and I can't see that changing, as they won't be able to differentiate between electricity going to EV's, or otherwise. The feds have no possibility of determining usage either, as they don't register vehicles, and electricity supply is a state issue (well, varies by state, Victoria sold off their electricity grid).
What are the plans to abolish rego fees? I haven't heard about that?
Don't know of the exact plans but.....
Rego does not and never has paid for road constructions. It barely covers the cost of the rego system (staff, offices, computer systems for whatever Roads and maritime services is called in your state).
So rego being an almost flat fee for car ownership inherently burdens those with fewer options to not own a car. High PT and walkable suburbs are expensive desirable places to live. Rich white collar can WFH, poor blue collar needs to open the cafe/restaurant, supermarket at 5am before buses start or close at middnight after buses end. No rego will heavily benefit poor people who have no choice but to drive.
It also discourages multiple car ownership to use the best tool for the job. You might want a massive 4wd for holidays but your daily driver only needs to be a mazda 2. Mazda 2 has significantly lower operating costs, lower emissions, lower damage done to roads, less on street parking taken up. But any financial benefits of two different vehicles for two different uses is destroyed by paying rego twice. So you just buy the massive 4wd and use it 95% of the time for driving that doesn't need to be a 4wd. And society suffers.
I wouldn’t mind paying rego if it wasn’t such a fucking obscene amount of money. I’m just barely getting by and car registration takes most of my money outside of rent and feeding myself. If I got rid of my car, I wouldn’t have much of an option for attending doctor appointments (my health’s shot at the moment) and finding a job would be much harder
Are you in NSW? Rego there is outrageous. Vic not as bad, especially now they’ve brought in the option to pay quarterly. It certainly makes it less financially cumbersome.
And land clearing/forestry.
Everytime I see headlines like NZ did this, or NZ did that, I think to myself Victoria did it first!
His progressive policies are straight lifted from the Reason party. And last election Labor went in extra hard against them and they almost lost their seat.
This is the power of small parties.
Labor absolutely did not go after Patten and the policies are lifted because she knows how to get things done, see my other comment in this thread.
>So-called preference whisperer Glenn Druery helped Ms Patten get elected in 2014 but they fell out over preferencing deals before the November election and she was not included in his groupings.
>Ms Patten was credited with helping to bring in a range of social reforms. She championed buffer zones for abortion clinics to keep protesters away from patients and staff.
>Ms Patten was also a strong backer of the supervised injecting room and voluntary assisted dying with her vote in parliament proving crucial to the introduction of both those initiatives.
>She hit out at Mr Druery, saying his work could only go “so far” and she had ultimately been successful despite attempts to “knock her off”.
>Just days after the election Premier Daniel Andrews told the ABC he would offer Ms Patten a job if she was not re-elected, saying her absence would be a “loss to the parliament”.
>"If she's interested, I'm sure we could find some different roles for her to play to make the place fairer and stronger," he said on the Monday after the election.
it's good that he is taking on progressive policy and would use her as a policy writer (and I am not sure if it's because it's good policy, or he just wants to win over the Leftist vote) but what I'm saying is that it's better to vote in the real thing rather than the copycat, and if you don't then the actual progressives will lose power, and then he would be under no obligation to take advice from Ms Patten if she was just an employee.
Right now she is part of the balance of power, he would lose power if it wasn't for her support.
I heard differently, that Labor came into her electorate very hard because they don't like sharing power from them while makes them look bad.
She is in the upper house as 1 of 6 from the northern metropolitan region so it's not really possible to go after her electorate.
Here are the group voting tickets if you want to check for yourself.
Labor preferences her 2nd/3rd even above the greens.
It's not her vote or advice that is important, it is her loud and proud advocacy in the media and organizing efforts. She shifts the overton window on issues so that labor can climb through.
Labor thinks she is worth her weight in gold.
So we've been giving them tax money while allowing them to discriminate this whole time?
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice” - MLK Jr.
Yes, because they have been bri... lobbying the major political parties for decades.
> Cut their access to government funding
And tax breaks.
And make them illegal.
Children have a right to education, not indoctrination and surely not indocrination into hate.
> Religious schools in Victoria will be prohibited from sacking or refusing to employ teachers because of their sexuality or gender identity under sweeping social reforms proposed by the Andrews government.
It's a nice political spotlight move to win popularity and votes but in practice it's completely pointless.
As if schools ever wrote down in their notes "nah couldn't hire this guy because he seemed a bit gay".
The descrimination wouldn't be documented unless the hiring manager / principal is a complete idiot.
They should have taken it a step further and taken the whole religious aspect out of the hiring process. So no "teachers are expected to live with Catholic values" or asking for reference letters from priests, etc. as part of job applications.
What they've passed here is contradictory and kind of pointless imo. A good first step maybe at least.
I know someone who was a teacher at a Catholic school in NSW, came out of the closet, and was subsequently fired explicitly for being gay. Lots of people at that school opposed the decision and thought it was wrong, as it was a fairly open and tolerant community, but the Powers That Be put their foot down.
Laws like this wouldn't completely stop this from happening, but it would make it much more difficult. There are plenty of people in religious schools and communities that are LGBT-friendly, and if they had the law on their side, this sort of thing would be dead on arrival in those places. Even though it's not perfect, it would make a massive difference in the lives of LGBT staff and members of these communities.
When I was in year 4 (around 2007) my teacher was sacked because she get pregnant WHILST ENGAGED. I didn’t really get what was going on at the time but it makes me livid to think back to it now. I asked my mum why parents didn’t stand up for her (she was a very good teacher) and her response was that none of them felt comfortable making a scene about it. If that happened when I had kids in school, I’d pull them out in protest and make as much of a scene as possible
The getting hired part might be pointless, but there are a lot of teachers working at these schools who're secretly gay, my brother is one of them. This prevents them from getting fired for being them selves. Whilst I'm sure these bigots will try to look for a work-around, they will open them selves up to potential litigation if they fire someone for something incredibly menial and pointless as a cover for firing them over being gay, presuming the gay teacher isn't doing anything wrong at school that would result in performance management.
Plus, I bet it adds provisions that applicants need not disclose their sexual identity.
A friend of mine (ironically we met through our church!) recently applied for a teaching job where they asked her point blank what her view was on gay marriage and what she would do if a kid confided in her about being gay or trans
When she said that she supports gay marriage, and would respect the kids’ privacy and make sure they felt supported and safe, the interview ended pretty quickly
That should not be legal to ask. It should be expected
> but in practice it's completely pointless
You're correct in that it has always been acceptable to refuse someone for a job because you "found a better qualified candidate".
Even if you aren't discriminating, it's a perfectly polite, legal and safe reason to refuse someone employment.
That some Christians have fought and lobbied for their right to **openly** discriminate here (instead of just being smart about it) is indicative they carry a shameless prejudice... it's hate. It's proud hate.
And it is good and proper to tell those people they are fucked and wrong.
Hiring you're correct but there are many reported cases of teachers being stood down upon coming out
>They should have taken it a step further and taken the whole religious aspect out of the hiring process. So no "teachers are expected to live with Catholic values" or asking for reference letters from priests, etc. as part of job applications.
\>taken the whole religious aspect
*Logical error detected*
Considering becoming a teacher in Victoria specifically to infuriate bigots
They'd try to find something else about you, and probably succeed.
That’s the thing I don’t get, this law only effects really dumb employers. There are so many ways for an employer to avoid getting in trouble for discrimination if they are smart about it.
Exactly. It's sad really; but at least it will do something, however little.
You're right in that to a degree. If they can't legally discriminate against you for one thing, that doesn't stop them from making up another reason to fire or punish you for that thing.
Even so, the idea that brilliant teachers who have had to hide themselves up until now for a livelihood being able to be more genuinely themselves is always a good thing.
Just be sure to educate the youth on allllllllllllllll the types of people that religious folks hate existing.
Nothing rustles their jimmies like someone different existing.
That would be a terrible waste of time and focus for what a teacher should be
Protecting the next generation from harmful radicalised thinking? Sounds fairly appropriate to me
I want you to compare this comment yonyour original one and tell me how they mean the same thing
Existing as an LGBT person in a conservative environment undermines the story conservatives try to tell about you.
Can't dehumanise the gays when a gay, your teacher, is obviously a human.
This makes bigots mad.
Now you can tell me why you're so mad about what was obviously a joke.
Good. If you want taxpayer funding, you have to play by taxpayer's rules. If you don't want to play by the rules, god speed to you but forget about getting public money. This is how it should be everywhere.
>Ms Symes said the reforms would “narrow” the exceptions to anti-discrimination legislation so that any discrimination would need to be “reasonable” and an inherent requirement of the job. “For example, a school couldn’t refuse to hire a gay or transgender person because of their identity but might be able to prevent that person being a religious studies teacher because of their religious belief.”
Perhaps a simple test before allowing any exemption based on religion.
Mate just come to Toowoomba (once the border opens). The people driving here have enough close calls that there must be a greater power curbing the consequences of their stupidity.
More than you can get with luck, the laws of nature and effort?
Your mind is just playing tricks on you
I think there's an... interesting... maybe not advisable, and maybe not middle ground, but certainly a position here, and it's a little bit immune to any changing fashions about whether a certain thing counts as discrimination or not:
You get to be a little bit discriminatory about who you *hire*, as long as that directly matches who you *serve*. And you only get to discriminate about *one* thing, declared in advance and for all time.
- Catholic schools could hire Catholic staff but not discriminate by race or gender or sexuality or anything else
- Women's shelters could choose to only hire women
- Aboriginal or migrant orgs could choose to only hire people with that ethnic heritage
- But say a Catholic girls' school could choose to only hire Catholics OR only hire women
(Again, I'm not particularly in favour of the approach, I just think it's moderately self-consistent.)
It's not about what they believe but about what is necessary for their job.
>Ms Symes said the reforms would “narrow” the exceptions to anti-discrimination legislation so that any discrimination would need to be “reasonable” and an inherent requirement of the job. “For example, a school couldn’t refuse to hire a gay or transgender person because of their identity but might be able to prevent that person being a religious studies teacher because of their religious belief.”
If someone wants to not hire/fire someone based on religion or identity they have to make the case for why it is necessary for their job. It is no longer acceptable to remove LGBTQ people as if they emit some sort of dangerous gay aura for the people around them.
Well the rub would be that if you’re truly of Religious Faith X then you’d only consider to self suitable for role Y if you meet certain criteria. Is a person suitably faithful if they want to be in the position that their faith says they shouldn’t?
I do t see the logical consistency in the article stating the allowance that a religious studies teacher need to have the same faith. Teaching is teaching, they need to teach the material. If what they do in their private life is relevant and must fit with the beliefs of the organisation they’re working for, religion is an odd carve out because it encompasses so many aspects of a person. I don’t like religious schools in general, but the logic of this is a bit off imo, it’s either no discrimination on any grounds other than ability to teach the material, or you’re allowing suitability to be determined with reference to what that faith believes in.
I strongly disagree with you.
That should be mandatory before those schools are allowed to teach at all.
I'm just making the suggestion to the public at large, but actually I agree it should be mandatory.
Using your terminology though, I state that I strongly disagree with you and say the it MUST be mandatory
>“Once again it seems that people of faith in Victoria are being told
what they can and can’t believe, that religious schools can only hold
and act on beliefs that the government determines are acceptable,” he
said. - Mark Spencer, Christian Schools Austr
Yes Mark, these "determinations on acceptability" are called laws and regularly prohibit people from doing all sorts of things. I can't believe the parking tickets away, and you can't believe your way into touching little boys. Some behaviours are unacceptable, and that is okay
Plus, no one is being told what they are allowed to believe, they are only being told how they can act. They can believe whatever they want about LGBT+ people, they're just being told they can fire people because of those beliefs.
Maybe if they can't employ people according to the laws of the land, then the Lord will provide them with volunteers or something?
Because there's a fucking addition to this: If your business model cannot operate in accordance with the law of the land, then you can fuck off.
Typical religious strawmanning, that guy is a tool. But such is the job of person who is in charge of said advocacy group
Wish these religious freaks would get the fuck out of the country
We have one in charge of the country "Doing Gods work" remember? He said that at a Pentecostal cult members convention months ago.
Also just to clarify I'm specifically talking about people who would fire someone for being gay, or who would look the other way re: others
Identifying as Catholic means endorsing and supporting the Catholic church - a global organisation which has continually engaged in protection of paedophiles for decades. By calling yourself Catholic, you are endorsing their paedophile protection racket. There's nothing to be proud of there.
> But condemming every Catholic because of people who pretend to be Catholic as a means of abusing their position takes away from the fact that it is a person doing this
That's like arguing China is fine because most of the people in China are well meaning and doing good for their neighbours. The institution is corrupt at it's core. Just because believers are well meaning and doing good doesn't mean that the instituion should be upheld.
>like they must have missed the most important rule of love everybody
Like the Catholic church 'loving' children?
I was being facetious of course, however the Catholic church is a centralised entity, and it has done a horrid job of looking after children. In my view they deserve any criticism leveled at it.
And those that walk past that (all observant Catholics) are every bit as culpable.
So many of the Catholic Churches policies are linked to the need for orphanages (ban on contraception-other than the don’t leave it in method) , for the abuse of children (ban on priests marrying or fucking another consenting adult).
I can blame the Catholic Church for its long history of the promotion of ignorance over reason, obedience over self fulfilment and lining it’s own coffers instead of looking after those it annointsnitself responsible for, the most vulnerable.
Fu&k religion, fu?k Catholicism and fu&k those who promote ignorance and superstition.
It doesn't matter how many poor you help, you rape once and it's over. See Bill Cosby.
[Entities of the Australian government engaged in genocide.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians) Does that make you a racist supporter of genocide?
>Don't blame Catholics for some humans being complete and utter wastes of space.
This being said, it's suitable to blame Catholic*ism* when the priests of that religion offend at a higher rate than the general public. Individual catholics are not to blame, no, but the ideology does create an increase in that particular problem.
It's also suitable to blame the *-ism* when the senior priests have to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing something about the problem by wider society. A properly moral *-ism* would have purged itself of the scourge without requiring being shamed into it by others. Instead we get Pell and his brand of stonewalling, amongst other senior officers.
This really infuriates me. No-one is suggesting 600 years the Pope decreed priests will have sex and only with children. But they set up a system which enforces celibacy, puts those same celibate people in close unsupervised contact with children and investigate and cover up incidents to protect themselves and the priests.
Over the years a lot of people have made conscious decisions to enforce this article of faith: they've actively chosen to put a religious belief over the safety of children for decades (and probably centuries). This isn't just predators being attracted to places of safety. This is a place of safety carved out by the actions and choices of catholics. They can literally stop this at any time. They can just report predators to the fucking police. They don't even have to change the god damn systems.
I went to a catholic college, and I'm not religious at all. My school had a scandal where a priest was found to be sexually assaulting children. Ever since then the school stopped having priests around. Despite not caring at all for religion, my school was everything right with catholicism and practised what they preached. The principal has been outspoken about advocating for anti-homophobia programs in catholic schools for almost 20 years and has criticized the church for the lack of protections for children. Yes, there's some messed up people who claim to be catholic, but that doesn't mean there aren't people out there that genuinely stand by all that's good about its teachings.
I've got precisely no respect for the institution and as such the followers tend to look down on me due to my disrespectful nature.
But frankly child rape disgusts me, and the church gets a -25/10 on that front.
I mean, don't get me wrong I agree and am against religion full force. My comment wasn't really aimed at defending any religion or the rape that the churches allow and cover up, more that the idea of loving everyone and being kind does sometimes exist in very rare occasions.
> it is really hard to be a **proud Catholic** when s**o many people r just freakin stupid**
I love irony.
>Being Catholic, and being willing to loudly and openly condemm those who seek to do harm is one of the most key teachings
I mean you can spin it that way, but if you dig a little into history of the church or the words of the bible, there is some straight up nasty stuff that is condoned/encouraged.
Being a Catholic is being part of a cult, so there is never anything 'proud' about that.
It depends on what definition you use. Webster defines cult as "a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious" so cult is a subset of religion and what separates it from other religions is how well regarded it is. In theology a cult is a religion that is focused around a central charismatic leader. So the early church is sometimes called "The cult of Jesus".
>the definitions of a cult and religion are very different
What are they? Scale, History?
I reckon I could make up a religion that would meet any criteria not involving those.
For your religion to be real, there must be a God...and there isn't one.
Look around you. There's far more good thoughts and good work outside of your cult than there is within it.
Pretending you are somehow different because of the cult you fell for, is doing harm to yourself and the people around you.
Either you are lying, mostly to keep the peace in your community, or your mind is playing tricks on you, the tricks that are carefully suggested by those who make a fine, tax free living.
You are scared that God might be real and that fear keeps you in check? Really?
That is so...awkward.
As I said, either lies or delusions.
So, let's swap out god with Evil Superman.
If Evil Superman exists, he's a bastard. He refuses to help those he easily could, he hurts people he doesn't have to, and if people don't act according to his ideology (which we've already established to be sucky), and praise him on a daily basis, then he tortures them.
If Evil Superman exists, the world is fucked.
If you knew for a fact that Evil Superman exists, you would therefore despair, quite justifiably.
But the knowledge that Evil Superman *might* exist... inspires you?
And you consider yourself a proud Evil-Superman-worshipper?
Man, fuck all of that.
How about this:
We live at the bottom of a shallow puddle of air clinging to a rock spinning in radiation-bathed space. The universe doesn't know we exist, nor does it care. Whether we live or die, whether we exist in bliss or torment.. never comes into consideration. Nobody is watching lest a sparrow fall. There's nobody to comfort us, nobody to provide comeuppance to bastards, nobody to reward the good. The books don't have to balance, as indeed they don't the vast majority of the time. There's nobody to forgive us for the harm we do, and no way to atone. Every bit of harm we do trails behind us forever, with nothing to take it away. The odds are against us, and there's exponentially more ways to fail and die horribly than there are to live comfortably, so we all get it in the neck at some point.
And the *only* force for good in the world, the *only* place where you'll find the tiniest shit given about you or anything you care about... is each other. Is ourselves. That's it, there's only us against the goddamn universe absentmindedly crushing us without the slightest consideration.
Our duty of care to each other, then, carries the weight of the whole world. We're all we've got. If not us, then nobody. If not now, then never. What we could change but do not... would make *us* evil and worthy of your anger.
It's just like being an adult, only massively bigger. You have all the choices in the world - there's nobody to stop you making the wrong ones, nobody to pick up the pieces when you do, nobody to make it all better or take away your guilt for doing it. You've got the wheel; not driving us off the cliff is *your* problem.
And you know what, an awful lot of the time, people *are* looking out for each other. There's always a percentage of bastards of course, and the good ones often can't provide useful help - but all up it's seriously not terrible, especially considering what we've got to work with.
That inspires me a hundred times harder to do good than Not Pissing Evil Superman Off ever would.
And you know, when the universe *does* casually crush us, or the people we care about? It's not personal. It's not malicious. It's not revenge or punishment. It's not some shitty power move. It's not a callous lesson, and you're not being made an example of. It's not a moral dereliction by the universe, because the universe is basically a big dumb rock. It's just dumb fucking luck, and it sucks... but that's all it is. You pick up broken glass, you might cut your finger - but that's just broken glass passively being sharp, it's not singling you out to make you a victim. And I tell you now, that's a hundred times easier to bear than any of the alternatives.
>The whole point of a God is that it can't be proven, if I had the choice to discover if God was real I would nope out of there.
this is incredibly sad.
Newsflash... they run the country
I’m a Christian who went to a Christian school. I personally don’t get the purpose of schooling being religiously bent. If you want religious education for your kids send them to Sunday school. Normal school is to prepare for the workplace.
> Normal school is to prepare for the workplace.
That is depressingly accurate. One would hope school would exist to educate and enlighten... nope, it's one long unpaid apprenticeship designed to shit out worker drones who don't question their lot in life.
> Normal school is to prepare for the workplace.
Pathetic attitude, we should all be starting work at 13 then like our great grandparents. That would be an ever better way to prepare us for the workplace
It’s amazing to me that all these religious groups and communities have to be forced by law to abide by their own actual biblical stance and teachings of all inclusive love and acceptance of thy neighbour.
Imagine being so sexist, racist and whatever-phobic that even the Australian government with (not) rapists in its ranks is sitting there like “aw yeah I dunno about that one it seems a bit too mean to me” about your inability to stand by a moral principal your entire organisation is supposed to be founded on?!
There are no religious schools, only schools where the people involved claim that they are different from the rest of us and deserve other 'rights' while using our money to teach children lies.
No that's what a religious school is you silly goose.
Those schools should be made illegal.
There should be some kind of petition to ban them.
The hold that the patriarchs of the business of 'religion' has on the people is still too great. They combine with the others who suppress us to keep public education poor and so are able to direct most money flows into their own pockets.
The elite, that is **Big Business, 'Religion'** and **The Monarchy** does not want that hold to weaken, because then people will think for themselves and each other and demand far more of the pie than they get now
Religion is evil. All cultish bull crap that isn’t allowed to be judged. Religion should t be near our children or government
They should never have had the right to in the first place!
V generous of Victoria to throw the coalition a ball that ask demonstrate their ability to actually take action when there's the political will. If only pandemic, climate change, federal ICAC, mental health, sexual violence, etc. could just package themselves as culture war items...
Good. We need drag their medieval minds into the 20th century.
Ah geez, I guess I'm showing my age. Kind of undercuts my point doesn't it?!
Baby steps. Get them dragged into the 20th century first.
It was never really a "right" anyway. More of a loophole. Everybody else had to treat LGBT+ people with respect.
You mean "LGBTQ staff gain the right to not be fired cause of their sexuality"
Good. The religions like to preach about tolerance, acceptance and the like, but only when it suits them.
Since they also get tax payer handouts, they can get farked.
Religion and schools should not mix in this day and age.
We should stop funding faith schools completely and properly fund public schools instead. So many parents are forced to pretend to be of a certain faith just so their kids can go to a nearby school.
They should stop existing!
Faith means belief without evidence.
And it's not compatible with education.
Children have the right to get a decent education regardless of who their parents happen to be.
Thank you. I would ultimately like for them to stop existing, but I think they should at least fend for themselves.
If private schools are private, they should be privately funded and yet they get more attention from this current government than public schools do.
That's why saying atheist instead of Jedi is so important in the census.
If only religious people answer "truthfully" only they get funding.
Agnostic or atheist is the prevailing practice, public schools get more money.
I wish they would care less about the sexuality of their teachers and care more about the systematic sexual abuse of their students by their clergy
Sacking staff just like Jesus wanted.
How does this affect my rights to sack religious staff?
Today, in the "hang on, this wasn't this banned already?!" segment ...
Wtf? How was this even allowed before?
About that time
They should lose all the current rights they hold over people imh
It was never a right in the first place
GOOD! TBH I don't think religious schools should have the right to discriminate. Also, I have NFI why they'd want the said right if they practice what they preach.
IMO Christianity has become such a fucking shitfuck of a self-interested cabal. IMO if the biblical figure of Jesus were around today (whether or not you believe in him), he'd be walking into these 'churches', ripping shit down and saying 'STOP USING MY FUCKING NAME LIKE THIS!!! MY MESSAGE IS LOVE AND USE THE SCRIPTURES TO GUIDE YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD - NOT TO BE A JUDGMENTAL MOTHERFUCKER WHO RIGS SOCIETY SO THAT CHURCH MEMBERS GET FIRST PRIORITY WHILE OTHERS ARE SHAT ON!!!'
And yeah... Jesus did do that back in the day. Whether he was a God or just a random weirdo, his approach was such that he really hated people using his name to self-promote one's own goodness while being a dickhead to others.
They should lose the right to even exist.
Religious education belongs in church.
This was in childcare so not a religious school, but one of the best teachers I’ve ever worked with is a gay man. Such dedication and love for the children. Would definitely trust him to take care of mine.
Worked with a bunch of Catholic educators a while ago and they were bullied, shitty with the kids and didn’t care about the children’s feelings. Bunch of homophobes too.
Your sexuality is the last thing I care about when you’re caring for my kids.
I live in the Hills and so many schools around here apparently can fire gay teachers ( or want the right to do so)
Beliefs or tax money pick one
Well shucks, they have to treat people as *people*. What ever will they do?
Should be nationwide. My music teacher in (Catholic) high school was fired when they found out she was a lesbian. Ridiculous. She was a brilliant teacher.
Looking forward to listening to my dad rail against the government forcing good righteous people to expose their kids to weird evil immoral sinners, in between claiming that a government that would consider a euthanasia bill must not care about health or human life so the lockdowns must be for some non health related reason, and that the WHO isn't letting ivermectin be used for covid treatment because it's "too cheap"... while I wait to get double vaxxed so I can look into starting HRT.
Remember the Wentworth bi-election to replace turnbull?
A section of the Ruddock report was leaked that talked about religious schools being able to fire teachers and expel students for being gay. There was a huge public outcry and morrison promised to fix that straight away (since losing Wentworth could put him into minority government).
That was yet one more in a long line of failed morrison promises.
There's nothing is the Bible to support 'Religious' schools, So where do they get any support from?
There's also no room for a pope, or a priest
There's specific statements *against* the church having a pope or a priest :P
But they're paying good money so that their children never have to be exposed to anything they disagree with so that they can be fully prepared for entering the real world /s
You say /s but they are doing that.
Private rules = private investment.
Public investment = public rules.
So then they should receive no state funding whatsoever?
If they want private bigotry, they can fund it privately.
Yes, I totally agree.
This whole funding shit no sense.
Like what school pays some of its costs through parents so it’s allowed to discriminate?
That logic applied to anything else is lunacy.
The hypocrisy here is that private school *DO* receive public funding (often more than public schools) but still want the right to discriminate.
That is pure, immoral and unethical hypocrisy.
They are a work place so there should be anti-discrimination laws like any other work place.
Ok, I hope this means that they can't sack LGBTQ staff because they are LGBTQ and not that they can't sack them at all. Because if you have a teacher or staff member who is LGBTQ and they are really lazy and don't do their job properly and all that, then they should be sacked.
But if it is the former, then yes, I agree that should be the case.
Sad this didn’t happen sooner! The sooner theses cults aren’t tax exempt, the better
Now they need to lose all the other unreasonable dispensations.
Okay. I'm a Christian. I need to make a few good-faith comments and questions here, so please refrain from quickly downvoting.
If Christian schools are going to be punished for no longer being able to sack LGBTQ staff, but do it anyway, where will this end up?
For many Christians, a Christian school is a place where both the state curriculum is taught alongside Christian beliefs and values.
As is quite obvious to many, Christian ethical and sexual values see as sinful any sex outside the context of heterosexual marriage. This sort of religious belief can be very easily proven through an examination of religious texts, along with thousands of years of history.
In other words, this issue is a *religious* one.
And because the Australian Constitution allows for freedom of religious expression, any legislation preventing religious expression may end up in the supreme court and be defeated.
There are some issues, however, that both Christians and the general public need to look into.
The first is whether it can established that a *school* is a form of religious activity. It's one thing to prevent a church from doing something, it's another to prevent a school.
The history of schooling, throughout the West anyway, is that schools were very much controlled by Christian religions up until the 20th century. Once state funded compulsory schooling took root in the 20th century, the state was seen as the main provider of primary and secondary education.
Nevertheless, religious schooling continued to exist alongside state schooling. An example are Catholic schools, some of which predate the compulsory, state controlled system.
If it can be proven that schools are a legitimate form of religious expression *as well as* a place where people are educated under various curricula, then this legislation will fail.
As I have pointed out, various religions (not just Christianity) see homosexuality or transgenderism as deeply problematic.
Take it this way: if a religious school system sacked a teacher for *heterosexual adultery* - also a sexual sin in the eyes of many religions - this, too, would be affected by this legislation.
For this legislation to pass, it would probably require a larger goal to succeed - the removal of religious freedom from the constitution. This can be achieved via a referendum.
If the legislation succeeds without the removal of religious freedom from the constitution, you can expect many years of legal and constitutional battling in the supreme court.
At the ground level, this legislation would also cause a very large public disobedience campaign by the parents of children in Christian schools. Christian schools will *willingly* sack a person if they reveal themselves to be LGBTQ, and they will *willingly* face the consequences of it, causing many, many people to join with them in protesting government.
> In other words, this issue is a religious one.
Then you've made sexual discrimination a form of religious discrimination in itself. Or does it only work one way? "You can't discriminate against *my* relationship, it's ordained by God!"
> If it can be proven that schools are a legitimate form of religious expression as well as a place where people are educated under various curricula, then this legislation will fail.
Or, you know... a business, with employees. This isn't about the students, this is about the staff and their rights.
> Take it this way: if a religious school system sacked a teacher for heterosexual adultery - also a sexual sin in the eyes of many religions - this, too, would be affected by this legislation.
Good. Employers should have no say over your personal life. I don't understand why your brought that example up, but I'm guessing that isn't the response you expected.
Ok lol 'transgerdersim' isn't a word!
Their deity would be proud of this decision. "Love thy neighbour" and all that shit.
Unfortunatley "We can't fire you, so we'll make your job as shit as possiible until you quit." will become the order of the day at these schools.
Yes, but that's still a crime...ish.
They have a right of recourse now is my point.
The gay agenda getting to equality, about fucking time!
Hallelujah...praise be to Jeepers
Nek minute all paedophile pastors come out as queer for job security
Religious schools in Victoria don’t take non-christians. They need to be non-classified as schools.
This is totally false.
Source: I go to a christian school and i’m not christian.
That's not true in the slightest.
I don't know about Victoria but in Queensland they preference the relevant faith.
Which I actually think is fine, maybe that's what he meant.
For some it is. To work at the high school I used to attend, you need to be a regular church attender and assent to a creed of faith.
That's still different to the sweeping generalisation made above.
Of course. I'm not saying "all religious schools only hire staff from their religion". That's not true in the slightest. But there ARE schools out there that are very strict on this. They ask for references from your church pastor, they get you to sign documents stating you agree with a bunch of different creedal statements etc. I have personally applied to work at two such schools and those two are just a short distance from my house.
Edit: oh and they require you to attend and take turns leading a religious gathering during school time too.