WILL TRADITIONAL TEACHINGS CONSTITUTE DISCRIMINATION?

"...John Howard's intervention in the same-sex debate was his most dramatic and passionate since he left the prime ministership in 2007.  He accused the Turnbull government of not taking religious freedom seriously and condemned it for not producing the bill it would put to parliament if the Yes vote wins.  He accused the government of trivialising religious freedom and demanded it clarify how it would protect "parental rights, freedom of speech and religious freedom" if the Yes vote passed.

Howard's intervention exposes the utter fatuousness of Liberal ministers who, until yesterday, had generally claimed a Yes vote would have no consequences for religious freedom beyond needing to ensure religious ministers did not have to officiate at gay weddings.  In response of Howard, Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten were forced to acknowledge that there would need to be some extra protection for religious freedom.  But ministers still spoke as though the main issue was clerics officiating at weddings.

Let's be very clear.  That is about the least likely threat to religious freedom arising out of this process.  The threat to religious liberty is much more pervasive.

Legalising same-sex marriage will vastly increase the power and propensity of all forms of anti-discrimination legislation, and attendant government propaganda bodies, to harass religious institutions on the basis that their traditional teachings constitute discrimination.

This is already happening.  Much of it will happen under state laws.  It is absurd for the federal government to ignore the interaction of federal and state laws..."

Extract from Greg Sheridan's article in The Weekend Australian 16/17 September (LIBERALS FIND SCANT REFUGE IN A SURRENDER TO IDENTITY POLITICS)

BENJAMIN LAW'S TWEET & IDENTITY POLITICS

Identity politics are broadly defined, but they typically involve an individual who bases his identity on social categories and divisions. Some examples are a feminist who always votes for female candidates regardless of policies, or a black person who primarily supports causes designed to empower the black community.
 https://www.reference.com/government-politics/examples-identity-politics-93ea56a0dfa41095

Interesting points from Greg Sheridan writing in this weekend Australian on the subject of Identity Politics and Benjamin Law's tweet and writer of the recent Quarterly Essay...

"...because the champions of identity politics, almost always comfortable middle-class activists, see themselves as fighting against horrendous historic evils, they recognise no bounds at all of moderation in their language or respect for people who conscientiously disagree with their proposals.

Thus Benjamin Law, in most respects a good and talented fellow, could tweet that he would 'hate-f..k' coalition MPs to cure them of their homophobia.  Imagine the society-wide and justified core meltdown there would be if some advocate of the No case said he would be happy to have rough sex with supporters of the Yes case to show them how good straight sex is...

The point here is not to make a martyr of Law.  He is a mainstream figure but not central.  The point is to illustrate where identity politics always goes, and always goes wrong.

That Law cannot see how profoundly offensive his comments were, that they implied a complete lack of respect for human beings who disagree with him, illustrates the toxic power of identity politics."