I am not a lawyer, I have no expertise in human rights legislation, but I do have an interest in religion, law, society, and promoting political pluralism! For me, it all began in 2016 when the Catholic Archbishop of Tasmania, Julian Porteous, was scheduled to appear before a human rights tribunal for a leaflet his diocese produced explaining what Catholics believed about marriage and their opposition to same-sex marriage. This was during the heigh of the same-sex marriage debate in Australia. The leaflet itself was pastoral and not polemical and was an attempt to explain to parents with children at Catholic schools what the Catholic Church believed about marriage. The leaflet began by affirming that “every man, woman and child has great dignity and worth which can never be taken away. This includes those who experience same-sex attraction.” It also affirmed, “The Catholic Church opposes all forms of unjust discrimination.” However, one activist believed the leaflet was an attack on the LGBTI community, lodged a complaint with the state human rights commissioner, and the commissioner said the archbishop had a case to answer. Thus, we had a scenario where a Catholic bishop was being hauled before a tribunal because he did - with alleged malice of forethought - conspire to teach Catholic beliefs … to Catholics.
You mentioned that what the football club had done was illegal so shouldn't Thornburn have sued Essendon or taken a more offensive position in relation to their actions? Up to him I know.
Or are the laws in place at the moment leaving religious people too exposed to do this?
Story of My Books # 23 - Religious Freedom in a Secular Age
You mentioned that what the football club had done was illegal so shouldn't Thornburn have sued Essendon or taken a more offensive position in relation to their actions? Up to him I know.
Or are the laws in place at the moment leaving religious people too exposed to do this?