The Catholic Weekly 5 July 2020

catholicweekly.com.au 11 5, July, 2020 with the US Supreme Court decision, they would be ad- vocating for not only the in- troduction of the Religious Discrimination Bill , but also the NSW equivalent of the same introduced by Mark LathamMLC recently, and the strengthening of religious freedom protections in other states. They would be saying that now the US has caught up with Australia in terms of protecting members of the LGBTI community against discrimination, it is time for Australia to catch up with the US in terms of protecting re- ligious communities against the same, and giving them the space and the freedom to continue to provide the mas- sive contribution they make to Australian society. It is a fight I would happily join them in. I won’t hold my breath, though, because that’s not how ideology works. A double standard on rights I n the latest example of complete (and dare I say, deliberate) misreporting of a legal case in order to achieve ideological ends, LG- BTI and other “human rights” advocacy groups in Austral- ia are using the recent US Su- preme Court decision of Bos- tock v Clayton County to push for a further wind-back of re- ligious freedom protections in Australia. As The Catholic Weekly re- ported a couple of weeks ago, the US Supreme Court decid- ed that the prohibition of dis- crimination on the basis of sex contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 includ- ed a prohibition of discrimi- nation on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status. Up until that decision, it was not clear that discrim- ination on LGBTI status was impermissible under federal laws. Advocacy groups in Aus- tralia jumped on the decision, urging Prime Minister Scott Morrison to drop any plans for a Religious Discrimination Bill that aimed to provide, at a federal level, the same pro- tections against unlawful dis- crimination on the basis of religious belief or activity that it does against unlawful dis- crimination on the basis of race, age, disability, sex and LGBTI status. These groups went even further and lobbied state premiers to remove ex- isting protections that allow religious institutions to prefer to employ those who share or at least accept their religious ethos. In order to do so, the groups completely mischarac- terised the nature of the case. Read properly, the Bostock case really only brought the US closer to the position that Australia has already been in for many years. The case involved several people who did not work for religious organisations. Ger- ald Bostock is a child wel- fare advocate who worked for Clayton County, Georgia. He was fired after joining a gay softball league. Donald Zarda was a skydiving instructor, who was fired after revealing he was gay. And Aimee Ste- phens was fired from a funeral home after telling her employ- er that she intended to under- go a male-to-female transi- tion. If they had occurred in Australia, each of these firings would have clearly been ille- gal, because our Sex Discrim- ination Act 1984 was amend- ed in 2013 to make it clear that discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orien- tation or gender identity. The US case was simply their Su- preme Court playing catch up with us. Interestingly, the Civil Rights Act also provides pro- tections against discrimina- tion on the basis of religion that are currently not avail- able in every state in Australia. For example, it is not illegal in New SouthWales for a Cath- olic to be denied service in a restaurant because they are a Catholic, but the advocacy groups were silent on this. They were also silent on what the US Supreme Court judges had to say about free- dom of religion. In addition to ruling in fa- vour of the LGBTI community, the judges also made it clear that they were “also deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion,” because the guaran- tee of religious freedom “lies at the heart of our pluralistic society.” The judges went on to note that the law that was the subject of the case before them also included an “ex- press statutory exception for religious organisations,” an exception that was backed up by the First Amendment to the US Constitution as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 1993 , which the court de- scribed as a “super statute” that displaced other federal laws, including potentially the commands of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act . In other words, the Su- preme Court made it clear that neither the legislature nor the judiciary were minded to encroach on the freedom of religious institutions to orga- nise their own affairs by em- ploying those who share their beliefs. If these so-called “human rights advocacy groups” re- ally want Australia to line up A runner carries a gay pride flag in front of the US Supreme Court building inWashington. PHOTO: CNS PHOTO/TOM BRENNER, REUTERS The won’t admit it, but activists will never accept consistency T o the point with Monica Doumit Ph: 4620 8822 or 9708 6972 www.KenneallysFunerals.com.au ‘ Servicing greater Sydney and the Macarthur area’ Why choose Kenneally’s  Servicing the Catholic Community  Family owned and operated  After funeral bereavement support available  Tailored options for your personal finances  Affordable pre-paid and pre-arranged funerals Prompt and Personalised Care