South Australian Discrimination bill.

[DesDownunder]

Church schools can ban gay staff, religious clothing

CHURCH schools will retain the right to refuse to employ gay teachers, but other institutions such as hospitals and welfare agencies will not have the same protection under a watering-down of proposed anti-discrimination laws.

Other proposed changes include:

RAISING the age limit from 12 to 16 under which a student can make a formal sexual harassment complaint.

DROPPING a proposed unlawful act of victimisation if a person were to "engage in a public act inciting hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule of a person or group".

DELETING part of the Bill which made it an offence to discriminate on the grounds of where a person lived.

LIMITING discrimination on the grounds of caring responsibilities to those looking after immediate family members (the original Bill had a much wider coverage).

Full article

[Trab]

While wanting to say more, my comment on their official comment window was as follows:

Quote: DROPPING a proposed unlawful act of victimisation if a person were to "engage in a public act inciting hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule of a person or group".

-Unless I'm completely misunderstanding this, anyone would therefore be allowed to legally and publicly incite hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule of a person or group. What an amazing thing to permit. Maybe politicians should be the first to be so ridiculed.

Quote: "DELETING part of the Bill which made it an offence to discriminate on the grounds of where a person lived".

-Note that this is not about where a person lives, which they could theoretically change, but LIVED; something that is immutable, unchangeable, fixed for eternity. Essentially, anyone can be discriminated against for whatever reason, and it can be claimed that it is because they 'lived' somewhere. This boggles my mind.

Maybe discussions should only take place in the winter time, as summer sessions seem to addle what little remains of common sense.

I could have gone on with much more, but I know the news media don't like anything too long, nor above the level of reader understanding, so I just limited myself.

[Graeme]

As with most of these things, some things are okay and some things are not.

Church schools in Australia are all private. As such, while they get public funding on a per student basis, it's not as much as the public schools (and most of the funding is from the federal, not state government). Given that they are explicitly marketing themselves as schools that teach things over and above the set curriculum, to require teachers to adhere to that extra level of requirement is, I think, acceptable. Church schools are still a minority in the education system, so they do not significantly disadvantage prospective teachers by imposing additional employment requirements.

I will draw the line, however, on those schools being allowed to sack gay teachers. In that case, the teacher was employed (presumably without an explicit no-gays policy) and the school should be held to that employment contract.

My views are, I think, consistent with not allowing hospitals and welfare agencies to discriminate, because the services being offered by such are not conflicted by the employee being gay. Teachers, however, who are trying to teach specific principles are compromised if they contradict those principles (and, no, I'm not saying I agree with those principles).

I think raising the age for sexual harassment complaints from 12 to 16 is too far. 12 may be too young, but I don't think by much. Most modern twelve-year-olds are quite capable of understanding what sexual harassment is, and should be allowed to make formal complaints.

The proposed "unlawful act of victimisation" sounded too broad to me. To make it a crime to public express severe contempt or ridicule sounds like a recipe for political correctness gone mad. For example, it would have made all the contempt and ridicule that was heaped on Pauline Hansen all those years ago illegal, and I personally think she deserved it for her comments.

I don't understand why the last two mentioned were being dropped or watered down. I would like to hear the arguments for the changes, but my first reaction is to disagree.

[Graeme]

A couple more comments....

This law will allow church schools not to hire gay teachers. That doesn't mean that the schools will take up that option. I suspect a reasonable number of church schools will still hire gay teachers if they are the best qualified for the position. From my experiences, church schools range from the very religious to the very secular and it is only those on the 'very religious' extreme that would do this. As an aside, they probably already require that their teachers have a compatible religious belief system -- I know the school my sons go to has -- so this is not making much of a change from the existing status quo.

However, I would love to see what those schools say if they are questioned about teachers who have divorced and remarried, since the bible clearly states that they are adulterers, and obviously unrepentant ones, at that. If they won't accept gay teachers, they shouldn't accept divorced and remarried teachers, either.....

[Cole Parker]

I can understand Graeme's argument that if you're going to teach at a religious school, and part of the curriculum being taught is that homosexuality is wrong, then being a practicing gay man teaching at that school would indeed be a conflict.

I hate the idea, though, that all religious schools would ban gay men from teaching there. Unless Australia is monolithic in it's religion, there must be schools that don't teach homosexuality is wrong. That's an Old Testament tenet. It's held to be true by religious conservatives. More liberal congregations here have discarded that belief. I hope that's true in Australia, too, and if so, and if there are religious schools more liberally founded, then there shouldn't be rules prohibiting gay men from teaching in them.

A law saying gay men can't teach at religious schools suggests, legally, that there is something wrong or wicked or evil about gay men. What century is this, anyway?

C

[Trab]

18th, Cole.

[Graeme]

A law saying gay men can't teach at religious schools suggests, legally, that there is something wrong or wicked or evil about gay men.

Cole, you've misread the article. It's not a law that says gay men can't teach at religious schools. It is that religious schools can choose not to hire gay teachers. That is choose -- it's not requirement. Schools can choose to hire gay teachers if they wish.

Another article (from the same news company, but a different newspaper), explained that schools can apply for an exemption now from the current law. What the change is doing is making it easier for them to get that exemption:

Under the old Bill, church schools wanting an exemption to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality were required to lodge a copy of their policy with the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity and make it available to current and prospective staff, students and parents.

That has been watered down so schools only will need to have a written policy available on inquiry and publish it on their website if they have one.

In other words, if the policy is in writing and freely available, then they are allowed to choose not to hire gay teachers. If a gay teacher applies for a position at a school where there is an explicit, written policy that they will not hire gay teachers, then... sorry, but I don't have much sympathy.

What may not be obvious to our overseas friends, but private schools are a minority here in Australia. Overtly religious church schools are a subset of those private schools (the majority being Catholic, though most of the major denominations have schools, as well there being some non-Christian religious private schools). The Catholic schools tend to be heavy on religion, but it varies considerable with the rest. For example, there are three private schools in our area, with a fourth opening next year. One is Catholic. One presents itself as being Christian, though non-denominational. I don't know what their policy on homosexuality is -- I never heard it being mentioned. One is nominally Anglican, but I think most people would consider it to be secular, and the fourth being built will be church owned, but largely secular in its teachings.

There are a lot of options for gay teachers to get employment. For a minority of schools to declare they won't hire them is, I think, not discriminatory. I would have a different opinion if the number of schools in questions was a significant number, say anything over 25% of available teaching positions.

[Trab]

Oh, it is discriminatory all right, just not catastrophically so. I still think that anything that smacks of discrimination should have other minorities 'plugged in' to see if it would pass the test of propriety (maybe that's not the right word to use). If it were 'blacks', 'women', 'muslims', 'jews', or even 'paraplegics' instead of gays, would that be acceptable? If not, then no, it is not proper to have that law.

[Graeme]

Okay, Trab, then consider the following questions:

Is it discriminatory if a gay male night club requires that all strippers be male? Should they be required to hire female strippers, or otherwise be found to be gender discriminating?

Anti-discrimination laws should not force private businesses to engage in practises that they do not wish to engage in, except when it is in the public interest to do so. An example of that would be requiring private pharmacies to fill legitimate doctor prescriptions, even if it is against the moral beliefs of the pharmacists (I'm think of dispensing contraceptives as the obvious example). But in general, a private business should be able to choose their clientele (a.k.a. freedom of association) and their employees.

Where widespread discrimination is shown to occur, such as with gender hirings, then the government should step in to force equality, but they should not do so where the amount of discriminatory businesses is minor. By that, I mean that those businesses that are discriminating are having essentially little impact on the wider community. It is their loss if they are losing prospective customers or employees because of their discriminatory practises -- the customers or employees have ready access to other, non-discriminatory businesses.

[Trab]

I truly don't know if we are just silly, or one step ahead. More and more we have full participation here, and even many washrooms/restrooms are going gender neutral, although mostly only in new buildings. Individual rooms, rather than male and female. Large restrooms in large facilities are still segregated. And yes, there are clubs that have male strippers and on other days, female strippers. Those are physical limitations of the anatomy, but we try to be fair even there. The only 'bastion' of discrimination in that way are private clubs that are NOT open to the public. If it is a private members' club, then, and only then, are they allowed to specify gender distinctions. Even our prison guards are mixed gender. I guess I should also point out that our night clubs are not designated as gay or straight, although the clientele certainly decide it by there presence or otherwise.

It is recognized that there may be physical challenges that disallow someone from performing a particular job function (blind air traffic controllers suck at it) but being gay is NOT a physical challenge, and should not be considered in that way. If a gay teacher were to not follow the curriculum, then by all means, fire the idiot, but action should be based on performance, not the prejudgement of what that teacher can or might do.

[Trab]

Anti-discrimination laws should not force private businesses to engage in practises that they do not wish to engage in, except when it is in the public interest to do so.

Sounds good, but it should be the other way around. Anti-discrimination laws should not allow private businesses to engage in practices they should not be engaged in. Who are we trying to protect? I say, the people. Your way seems to be to protect the individual business owner, or in a worst case, a whole chain of businesses. I say, unless there is a vital public need, nobody should be discriminated against.

[Graeme]

Not quite. I'm protecting the right for individuals to have bigotted views, to allow them to control what they own, and to associate with who they want to, all as long as it does not have a significant impact on others.

After all, business owners are people, too, and their rights should be protected. We have two conflicting 'rights' -- the right of free association and the right to be treated fairly. My view is that as long a person can be treated fairly in the wider community, an individual or group of individuals have the right not to associate with that person.

There are, of course, lots of fine nuances in this. The situation we are talking about is with employment, which is definitely in the area of a business owner/manager choosing who to associate with. That is different to the area of providing a service, where it is the customer who is choosing who to associate with. To deny a service when it can be realistically be expected to be provided is discrimination. Even there, though, if the service can be easily supplied by someone else, then I would accept that as a (poor) business decision.

[JamesSavik]

I guess religious mutts are the same all over: they insist on retaining their right to be ignorant bigots.

[DesDownunder]

I made the original post without comment to see what thoughts were around on a situation about which I have strong feelings. Here be my thoughts.

The razor edge arguments of protecting rights of people against discrimination in the face of denying other person's rights are those consistently used without recourse to analysing the facts in sufficient depth.

Where this argument involves politics or religion, or politics and religion there are a number of confrontational aspects that need not arise if we see the difference between provable fact and belief, even if it is irrational belief.

Therefore I would claim that if a person professes a belief in a religion, he does so without any demonstrable proof. Words of Holy Scriptures do not meet the requirements of scientific evidence. However an individual has the right to believe what he likes, and I defend that right on the grounds that it is an essential human right.

But the belief itself is rightly subject to being questioned by non-believers.

What the believer does not have, is the right to insist that others believe as he does, even if his belief says he does have the duty to demand they believe as he does.

It is this last point where the human rights line is crossed in cases of discrimination.

To elaborate; if I believe in a religion I should be free to do so, even if I cannot substantiate its doctrine.

However such a belief must not be imposed on others who by their nature are condemned by that doctrine, or who simply do not wish to participate in that religion.

Let me be clear here, "by their nature" means a verifiable factual human form, not a belief. I may be black, or red, bald, fat, skinny, white, male, female, androgyne, etc. These are not beliefs they are indisputable facts, the same as is homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual or as I prefer to regard it, as just sexual.

We too often confuse the thought we have of our selves as being a belief, when in reality, we are simply, what we are.

In this area then the razor's edge must be balanced in favour of the fact of what we are, against other's beliefs dictating what we should be, should believe or what they want us to be.

To further clarify; the confusion of what is believed, with what we do, is all too often raised as a discussion point of condemnation. It is not the issue here.

What we do, can and should be judged in relation to the laws of the community, but those laws whilst they may have emanated from religious morality, must be divorced from forcing the community to be members of the religion either covertly, or overtly.

Discriminating the claims of beliefs is a valid scientific questioning process of investigation which may call the belief itself into question.

Discriminating against a person for his human form, is a violation of human rights.

Beliefs are acquired; they are environmental; they can be rejected and accepted as befits the individual unless he is conditioned to accept them without question. One is tempted to say, "Love the believer, hate the belief."

The human form on Earth is what we are, all else is subjective and subject to interpretation, with the sole exception of realising our inbuilt affinity for Love.

Church and state should therefore, rightly be separated, and religions should be denied by law, the ability to discriminate against individuals or races on the basis of their natural human condition.

My opinion is that most religions should be championing this view on the basis of the words and actions attributed to their founders, but that is another subject.

[Cole Parker]

As always, Des, you write eloquently and with intellectual fervor. I'm not sure you're directly addressing Graeme's point, however. He wants people to have the right, in private, to associate with only whom they want to associate, and then extend that privacy exclusion to private enterprises. He believes in separation between private and public arenas, and says denying private groups and businesses and schools that separation is violating their rights to the same degree that not allowing a minority access to the same things a member of the majority has available to him is violating his rights. This isn't an issue that is as evanescent and insubstantial as faith. This is discussing real world differences between private and public practices. At least that's how I'm reading it.

I can see substance in both Trab's and Graeme's arguments. Both have merit. And thinking about them has forced me to make a choice between the two. As is usual for me, I've come to sort of a compromise.

I think Graeme's argument has merit, that someone has the right to chose to be with or not to be with someone based on whatever he wants to base that judgment on. We'd be violating some very basic rights to not allow that.

And I think Trab is correct when he says we need to protect people over businesses, that their rights must be protected against unfair discrimination.

I guess where I fall on this is a little on both sides. I agree that a person's own views are his own, and he has the right to have them, even if they are antithetical to the majority. I think in his private life he can choose not to associate with some people, even if in public life his reasons for making that choice might be illegal.

But this began as a question of religious schools having the right not to hire gay men. And that premise stated as Graeme first stated it was persuasive. Then Trab jumped in and muddied the waters, and I was confused, and have watched the ensuing arguments grow from that point.

Now I've come to the conclusion that one side of this outweighs the other. My original thought was that is isn't fair to restrict employment of gay men because doing so conflicts with what a church-run school is trying to teach. Now I can say unequivocally that I still think that, after having to process it through the new filter of Graeme's tempting arguments. The thing is, even if it's a private school, the issue is employment. And employment is an area, like housing, say, or restaurants, that affects the public. Blacks here have legal rights in those areas. Often gays don't. Basic fairness should say that we don't withhold jobs from gay men because they are gay. If a religious school teaches that homosexuality is wrong, first it should be ashamed of itself, but second, it should not restrict employment of gay men as long as those men agree to teach to the curriculum and act in public in a way consistent with the mores and ethics of the staff.

The argument that such employment affects less than 25% of the available jobs for gay teachers is somewhat specious. If I were looking for a job, I'd want the ability to go after 100% of the ones open. I wouldn't want curbs on my ability to find work. Same with housing. Same with what restaurants I could eat in, or swimming pools I could swim in. Any other way restricts my freedoms. I don't think a swimming pool, because it's private, should keep me from joining that club because I'm Jewish, or black. If that's legal, then it's legal discrimination based on things that are now illegal as bases of discrimination.

Our country is stronger since we've outlawed such discriminatory practices.

C

[DesDownunder]

My argument such as it is, is that people may believe what they want. I maintain that such belief does not have to be validated by reason and it may be shared by those of similar mind, except where they seek to force their belief on others. That includes their employees, and children in their charge such as students in a school.

This does not work two ways however in the situation where they claim people who do not share their beliefs by virtue of their race or human form are offensive to their belief. That is an attempt by the people with a belief to deny the human rights of those who do not share their beliefs. That is patently discriminatory and just plain wrong.

We should take care to not confuse the situation with one where sets of differing beliefs are in conflict with each other. In that case it is much more difficult to arbitrate an environment free from any discrimination.

It is thus my contention that the announced "watering-down of proposed anti-discrimination laws" is based on the idea that the anti-discrimination law has fallen subject to differing beliefs in conflict with each other, rather than seeing that the real difference is between belief, and the facts of human existence.

When those facts of human existence are denied or discriminated against as they are in this amended bill, then human rights have been violated for the most unacceptable reason of someone else's belief. History is rife with this kind of discrimination, and it really amounts to little more than the oppression of our freedoms, which effectively and strangely enough, results in denying our freedom to believe whatever each of us wishes.

I hope this further clarifies the differences upon which I make my argument for human rights to not be displaced by the beliefs of others.

[Graeme]

Now I've come to the conclusion that one side of this outweighs the other. My original thought was that is isn't fair to restrict employment of gay men because doing so conflicts with what a church-run school is trying to teach. Now I can say unequivocally that I still think that, after having to process it through the new filter of Graeme's tempting arguments. The thing is, even if it's a private school, the issue is employment. And employment is an area, like housing, say, or restaurants, that affects the public. Blacks here have legal rights in those areas. Often gays don't. Basic fairness should say that we don't withhold jobs from gay men because they are gay. If a religious school teaches that homosexuality is wrong, first it should be ashamed of itself, but second, it should not restrict employment of gay men as long as those men agree to teach to the curriculum and act in public in a way consistent with the mores and ethics of the staff.

I understand what you're saying, but I have to disagree on fine detail. I find the idea that an employer can be forced to employ someone they don't want repulsive. There are situations where that should be done, and I said in an earlier post that there are situations where the law should step in to stop discrimination, but it shouldn't be managed at the micro level.

There will always be discrimination. There is an ideal world where it doesn't exist, but we have to live in this one. Any time there is a choice, there is the potential for discrimination. Taking a silly extreme, homosexual males discriminate against females by not wanting to have sex with them. Would you like to see a law that says it is illegal to discriminate on a gender basis when someone asks you for sex?

What I'm aiming for is a balance between allowing groups to practise their beliefs and preventing groups from being disadvantaged by discrimination. That 25% figure I used was plucked out of the air -- I've got no real basis for choosing that number. The ideal would to say that no one can discriminate, but that's not realistic.

My argument such as it is, is that people may believe what they want. I maintain that such belief does not have to be validated by reason and it may be shared by those of similar mind, except where they seek to force their belief on others. That includes their employees, and children in their charge such as students in a school.

I understand, Des, but again I have to disagree on fine detail. I agree that someone should not force their belief on their employees, but the issue here is being able to choose your employees by requiring that they share their belief. That's not forcing their belief on others, that's being able to choose to only employee those with the same belief.

As for children in schools, again it's a special case. The parents of those children have chosen to send their child to that school, and, in effect, have given the school permission to teach those beliefs to their children. Is that forcing? If it is, then it's also forcing for those parents to teach those beliefs at home. Indeed, it's forcing to teach almost anything to children on that basis, because the children are unable to give informed consent on what they are to be taught.

[Cole Parker]

I understand what you're saying, but I have to disagree on fine detail. I find the idea that an employer can be forced to employ someone they don't want repulsive. There are situations where that should be done, and I said in an earlier post that there are situations where the law should step in to stop discrimination, but it shouldn't be managed at the micro level.

And I can't disagree with that. But what you're saying here is somewhat different. If you're conducting a one on one interview for a potential employee and that individual displeases you for some reason, something as trivial as bad breath or as important as a resume lacking in the qualifications you're looking for, you certainly have the right to decide to not extend a job offer. I see nothing wrong with that. But to not hire him because he's gay when he meets all the job requirements, both personal and professional, is pure discrimination, and shouldn't be codified into law. That's what I object to. Allowing a concern, private or public, to discriminate based on something an applicant has no control over, is simply wrong.

Yes, these are shades of gray we're speaking about. But I think they're important.

C

[Trab]

Would you like to see a law that says it is illegal to discriminate on a gender basis when someone asks you for sex?

If that person is selling sex as a business, yes, I think it should be illegal to discriminate. If it is personal pleasure for both parties, then discrimination is really just a matter of preference.

Allowing a concern, private or public, to discriminate based on something an applicant has no control over, is simply wrong.

That's the issue in a nutshell, isn't it? Discrimination based on something the person has no control over is wrong. Why? Because no matter how much they might like to change it, they cannot. Attitudes can be changed, albeit with difficulty for some, but the physical reality of being ourselves is not changeable under any but the most extraordinary circumstances.

Often there is vehement defence of peoples' right to make choices that may be discriminatory in nature, but more often than not those are from people who have not been the victim of discrimination. If one is repeatedly discriminated against for something that is completely out of your control, you tend to see it for what it really is, total abuse of power, depriving you not only of goods and services, but also the dignity of acceptance as a human being. It comes down to you being suppressed and squashed, maybe physically, but certainly mentally, all to satisfy some irrational discomfort on the part of the discriminator.

[DesDownunder]

I agree with you Cole. Refusing to hire someone because they are gay is discrimination.

I understand and concur with Graeme's aim for balance, but at the moment we are lacking wholesale recognition of human rights.

That is why your silly extreme:

Taking a silly extreme, homosexual males discriminate against females by not wanting to have sex with them. Would you like to see a law that says it is illegal to discriminate on a gender basis when someone asks you for sex?

is most relevant to the discussion as it is a human right to be able to refuse sex with someone, anyone, we do not want to have sex with.

This is not even a discrimination issue unless we pass laws to make us do things against our human nature in line with someone else's beliefs. Under that extreme we would be legalising rape on a gender basis.

Similarly Graeme, your concern that:

Indeed, it's forcing to teach almost anything to children on that basis, because the children are unable to give informed consent on what they are to be taught.

Falls outside the discussion because it is the prerogative and the duty of the parents to nurture and raise their offspring, as they see fit, provided that the child's human rights are respected. There is such a thing as the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

It is not that long ago that people fell about the streets laughing at the idea of not hitting a child. Today it is accepted that hitting a child can teach the child to be violent.

The answer here is part of the balance you mention Graeme. State laws that place restrictions on what parents may teach their children would seem to call for careful consideration as to what is child abuse and what is unwarranted social conditioning. Neither of these are acceptable if they do not allow for the individual child's potential growth as a unique human being and in that regard, either would amount to discrimination against the child's welfare.

I fear from the above bill that the present government would have no problem with socially conditioning a child for its own, if not nefarious, then certainly misguided beliefs, political, religious or otherwise.

Trab sums up the points rather well.

[Graeme]

But to not hire him because he's gay when he meets all the job requirements, both personal and professional, is pure discrimination, and shouldn't be codified into law. That's what I object to.

My point is that the person in question doesn't meet all the job requirements. Before they applied for the job, one of the job requirements would be publicly stated as sharing a particular belief system, which includes the belief that homosexuality is immoral. Thus, they don't meet that job requirement because they don't share that belief system.

I'm not saying that I agree with that belief system, but shouldn't a school that proclaims itself as one that subscribes to that particular belief system be allowed to hire teachers that agree with that belief system? We are not talking about the case of someone being denied employment in a secular area because of something that's not relevant to the employment. We are talking about a school that promotes itself as teaching within a particular belief system, so a requirement to believe in that belief system is reasonable as part of the job description.

I agree with you Cole. Refusing to hire someone because they are gay is discrimination.

In most contexts, I would agree with you. We are, however, talking about a particular case that's on the edge of the right to a belief system that you've already acknowledged. If it was a secular school that just happened to be owned by a church, then I think you're right. But we are talking about a school that attracts students partially on the basis of the religious ownership.

... because it is the prerogative and the duty of the parents to nurture and raise their offspring, as they see fit, provided that the child's human rights are respected. There is such a thing as the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I fear from the above bill that the present government would have no problem with socially conditioning a child for its own, if not nefarious, then certainly misguided beliefs, political, religious or otherwise.

My comments were in response to your earlier post:

My argument such as it is, is that people may believe what they want. I maintain that such belief does not have to be validated by reason and it may be shared by those of similar mind, except where they seek to force their belief on others. That includes their employees, and children in their charge such as students in a school.

The students have been placed in that particular school by their parents. One of the criteria that the parents would have used was the belief system and degree of involvement of that belief system in the school. As an example, my wife and I vetoed the local Catholic primary school because we thought there was too much religion in the classes. The school we sent our boys to has, to our mind, a much better balance.

By sending their children to a school like that, the parents are making a conscious decision that they want that particular belief system to be involved in their children's upbringing. As such, they have a right to expect that the teachers at the school will adhere to the belief system that is part of the schools promotion.

To finish off, I find the arguments being used against the position I've taken as generally persuasive. My point is that we are dealing with a grey area at the border of a person's right to a particular belief system.

My personal preference would be that no school applies for the exemption that the law allows, but I don't see that as happening. I would also prefer those schools to hire gay teachers if those teachers are the ones that are needed by the school, because it is only the children that suffer if the teachers they have are not the best possible. However, I respect the rights of the parents to expect certain things from their teachers in the way of morals, because teachers are a role model for students, especially in the primary school area (most of the schools in question teach at the primary school level, up to year 6, and, as such, issues of sexuality are rarely mentioned). As an example, as a parent, I would be concerned if it became common knowledge at my sons' school that one of the teachers worked as a prostitute after school hours. That's perfectly legal in Australia, but is it something that I want my boys to exposed to when they are still in primary school?

[Cole Parker]

My point is that the person in question doesn't meet all the job requirements. Before they applied for the job, one of the job requirements would be publicly stated as sharing a particular belief system, which includes the belief that homosexuality is immoral. Thus, they don't meet that job requirement because they don't share that belief system.

I guess I can only respond that a belief system which discriminates against someone for who they are, when that isn't something they had any say in being, is wrong. I'd find it particularly noble if a school system were to say, for instance, that anyone who condoned and abetted Nazism was precluded from a job in their system. But that belief is different. You choose to or not to become a Nazi. In the case of a gay man, he's being denied the chance of employment due to a belief system that marginalizes him.

Wouldn't this be analogous to having a belief system that said blacks were second class citizens, and only first class citizens could join. This isn't legal. It is something that has been tested in the courts recently. We're on the cutting edge of looking at this problem. And I agree it's one set of rights ramming into another set. If one set has to be compromised, then I agree with Trab, the one that hurts people who have no choice in the matter seems to be the one that should be changed.

I don't see why a schoolteacher who is gay should be preclude from teaching if his sexuality never comes up. And that should be the case 99% of the time. Our government came up with the clumsy 'don't ask, don't tell' system to confront this proglem in the armed forces. Obama is currently looking to have that changed, and to allow gay men the ability to hold their heads up and be whole while serving our country. Well, that's off topic a little, but I'm proud of the man and like to add kudos where I may.

Again, I see your point, Graeme. So many issues these days seem to have merit on both sides of the argument.

C

[Graeme]

I don't see why a schoolteacher who is gay should be preclude from teaching if his sexuality never comes up. And that should be the case 99% of the time.

I totally agree. What we are debating is the other 1%. Actually, I would go further than your statement. I don't see why a schoolteacher who is gay should be precluded from teaching, even if his sexuality comes up, unless there is a conflict with school policy. The vast majority of schools in Australia don't have a policy against gay teachers (indeed, I think all public schools have an explicit policy that requires them to not discriminate on the basis of sexuality), so there's no reason an openly gay teacher couldn't teach at those school.

Should schools be allowed to have a policy against gay teachers? Even under the current South Australian legislation, they can -- the proposed change is to make it a little easier for them to have such a policy:

Under the old Bill, church schools wanting an exemption to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality were required to lodge a copy of their policy with the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity and make it available to current and prospective staff, students and parents.

That has been watered down so schools only will need to have a written policy available on inquiry and publish it on their website if they have one.

There's no change being proposed as to being allowed to have such a policy. The change is in the requirements to be able to do so.

As for your comment about having a policy against black teachers, I take your point. The schools won't, however, because their belief system views homosexuality as a choice. If you get into the fine detail of what they believe, they are actually correct. Homosexuality isn't prohibited -- homosexual activity is what's considered immoral. Since activity is a choice, they would argue that they should be allowed to preclude people whose activity is against their belief system. However, I doubt many of them think of the detail and just lump it all as homosexuality is immoral.