Thread by @joshuabadge

Firstly (since this needs saying) you can absolutely discriminate against people while acting according to some religious beliefs. This Trojan horse enshrines a positive right to discriminate against many groups including LGBTI people, divorcees, single or unmarried parents etc

Religious bodies and schools can already discriminate based on a person’s religious belief or activity, sex, sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental status or gender identity. This law seems to extend this right to any person of faith

Secondly, the wording is so broad here that you could arguably commit any discrimination and get away with it. So long as you are acting “in good faith” with your religious beliefs, you are incapable of discriminating against people. How would this work with existing laws?

Under existing anti-discrimination laws, religious institutions cannot discriminate on the grounds of race, disability, age, physical features, industrial or employment activity, carer status, political belief or activity, pregnancy, breastfeeding

But, for instance, if your interpretation of the Bible is that gays are morally inferior, that HIV activists are immoral or that women are supposed to be modest do you have carte blanch right to act per these beliefs by dismissing such members? The wording here suggests yes.

Thirdly, it’s unclear how the “good faith” clause works. What if we’re talking about a tiny religious sect or the religious beliefs of one person? A person could say “it is my sincere religious belief that gays are morally inferior and don't deserve rights” and... that’s that?

Moving on to the spicy parts of the bill... there’s a section on “conscientious objections” which allows doctors to refuse to perform health services on religious grounds. Presumably, this is meant to shield homophobic and transphobic doctors going forward...

Would doctors be allowed to refuse to perform a HIV test or prescribing PrEP? Would they be allowed to refuse to refer a young trans person on to an expert, or refer a woman for an abortion? Broadening the scope, would this mean that vaccine denying doctors have more leeway?

Another fun tidbit is that under this religious discrimination bill, it will be an offence to fire or refuse to hire someone with a history of public and aggressive homophobia or transphobia so long as they claimed it was religiously based conduct

Not only that but employers won’t be allowed to prevent or reprimand explicit homophobia or transphobia in the workplace. An evangelical Christian could walk into work wearing a “gays are going to hell” shirt and an employer would not be able to stop or even discipline them

Sufficed to say that this is going to be a MESS. Employers must to provide a safe workplace. Take a university, for example: they have a duty of care to staff/students which is contradicted by the wording of the law here. Which trumps which?

Here is a real kick in the teeth: schools will not be allowed to so much as punish homophobic students if they claim religiously based conduct. A reminder that religious schools can legally expel gay students and fire gay employees and have done so

Just trying to imagine what it will be like for young queers in religious schools. They can already be kicked out at the drop of a hat and this law will protect any homophobia they cop from peers. What a complete nightmare...

Alright, we've come to one of the sneakiest and most cooked sections. It says that it is unlawful to refuse entry to a premises that is somehow open to the public on the grounds of “religious activity” e.g. very loud “statements of belief”. The implications for this are huge...

Under the religious discrimination bill, homophobes could force queer venues to host anti-LGBTQI+ events. Similarly, Westboro style bigots could turn up to a gay club with “God hates fags” signs and the venue would have to let them in or risk being dragged to court

Or, for example, a person could claim a religious basis for handing out transphobic pamphlets in the waiting room of a gender clinic. The law seems to enshrine a right for people of faith to access spaces and enact explicit homophobia and transphobia

Remind you of anything? That’s the kind of political activity that anti-abortion campaigners like to engage in but which was outlawed in Victoria by the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Safe Access Zones) Act 2015. NSW, NT, ACT & Tasmania have similar laws

For anyone unfamiliar, a Safe Access Zone is a legally enforceable space between any campaigners and abortion clinics. They prevent people from harassing or intimidating women, impeding access to clinics, or recording people entering or exiting etc

The bill will override existing anti-discrimination laws in Tasmania. The bill explicitly states that the federal law will apply in the case of any inconsistency. The issue is that Safe Access Zones are *state* laws which are inconsistent with the *federal* bill

The situation is this: state laws say anti-abortionists must stay away. However, the federal religious discrimination bill says that people of faith cannot be refused entry to “state their beliefs” as a part of “religious activity” ... say like proselytising at an abortion clinic

The two objections here might be that (1) the bill doesn’t intend this and that (2) it’s unconstitutional. In the case of (1) it doesn't matter what the government intends, it's about what the law says. It's such a sensitive and important issue, the bill should be *much* clearer

Put the question to lawmakers. Even if that isn't what the govt intends (and it might well be!) then it would be safer to stipulate in the law that people of faith cannot use the religious discrimination bill in this way. The fact that it's is unclear on this point is terrifying

In the case of (2) well... maybe? Full disclosure: I'm not a constitutional lawyer but I've never seen a law so preoccupied with justifying its own existence by outlining the heads of power it falls under...they expect a big legal challenge (I'm going to guess the HRLC)

What this mess would look like is an anti-abortion campaigner being refused entry or access to an abortion or gender clinic, then taking the organisation to court. They could argue that the federal laws apply constitutionally, and a court would have to decide whether they do

Just to wind up this very long thread (sorry!) folks can apply for exemptions from the bill. However, any exceptions can be reviewed by the AAT, an organisation known for its extreme hostility to LGBTI asylum seekers... ACL & co could just dob people/orgs in for review

The govt is basing this bill on its right to enact treaties in law but it's going *way* further than the religious freedoms outlined in intl human rights law—see Articles 18 in the UDHR & ICCPR. Freedom of religion does not trump the fundamental rights and freedoms of others 👏

So that’s that. The religious discrimination bill enshrines a right to discriminate against LGBT people, protects homophobic political activity, empowers aggressive homophobes with new rights and may well overturn Safe Access Zones among much else! #ReligiousFreedom #auspol