According to recent reports, the Victorian state government proposes to preserve the right of a religious organisation to refuse to employ, or provide services to people who they believe undermine, disrupt and interfere with the organisation’s teachings.
Under this proposal religious groups will be permitted to discriminate on the grounds of sex, sexuality, marital and parental status andgender identity.
This reminded me of a discussion I recently had with a lesbian friend who, understandably, believes that gay and lesbian couplesshould have the right to marry. Although I have no problem with same sex marriage, I cannot see why any gay, or lesbian couple would want their relationship sanctified under a sexist, bigoted and homophobic religious institution.
Why indeed would any fair-minded couple seek the blessing of an institution that demeans women, rails against the lesbian, gay,bisexual and transgender community, and demands that all heterosexual couples adhere to anachronistic moral rules?
Although I can’t understand why anyone would want to subject themselves to such institutional practices, individuals ought to be free to do so.
Just because most parents do not want to subject their child to an education that demands adherence to religious dogma does not mean that parents who wish to do so should be prohibited from accessing religious-based education.
And just because most fair-minded individuals would not want to work for a sexist and bigoted organisation does not mean that those who wish to do so should be precluded from doing so.
If we value religious freedom, then we must be prepared to allow religious organisations to conduct their affairs in accordance with their principles, beliefs and values, no matter how offensive they may be to members of the broader community.
Provided that these institutions do not engage in unlawful and criminal practices, they have a right to conduct their church affairs in accordance with their practices and values.
A government committed to imposing standards of equality and fairness in Australian life would result in unacceptable levels of government meddling and interference. With regards to religious organisations, governments would have to censor religious scripture, and remove most customs and church-based practices.
They would, for instance, be required to dismantle all gender dividing structures within the Greek Orthodox Church, as was the case a couple of decades ago when the “white line” was removed from all VRC venues.
Although we cannot expect governments to interfere in all aspect of religious life, we must expect them to stand up to sexist and bigoted religious organisations when they venture beyond the church walls. Especially when they are set to benefit from the public purse.
A religious organisation that decides to operate beyond its place of worship (usually for business purposes) must adhere to the secular principles and laws upon which all business are required to comply by.
For example, the Sanitarium Health Food Company is completely owned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Australia. In accordance with the current State government proposal, Sanitarium is well within its rights to deny employment to any person who opposes and undermines the principles and practices upon which the Seventh Day Adventist is based on.
To use another example, given that the secretive sect, The Exclusive Brethren, is associated with extensive business operations throughout Australia, means that they too can invoke the proposed religious protection laws to deny employment to any member of the public who contravenes the Church’s teachings.
Furthermore, with the government outsourcing of social services to religious organisations, it is possible for the church responsible for these services to do the same thing.
Closer to home, the fact that the Greek Orthodox Church runs age care facilities and numerous social services for disadvantaged groups means that they too will be able to use the religious freedom exemption to deny employment and services to those they consider to be dubious moral types.
Acting Premier, Mr. Hulls told the Sunday Age last week that “if a religious welfare agency refused to offer services to a same-sex couple, for instance, the agency would have to demonstrate how this action conformed with its religious doctrine.”
It will still however fall to the victim of discrimination to make a complaint and force the religious body to justify its actions.
This, however, is nothing more than a politically convenient way of shutting certain groups out of the workplace. And we can’t have this in a secular liberal democracy that recognises the right of all Australians to access work.
Chris Fotinopoulos is a Melbourne based writer who has taught ethics and philosophy at the university of Melbourne and Monash.