Really !!?? And truly ? You can see them having the a. money, b. vindictiveness and c. capacity to create a storm in a teacup ? d. For what purpose ?
Overreach by miles at this point in time Rumpy.
I may have been remiss in failing to insert the word "metaphorical" in that post.Blank cheque for?
Section 37 does not protect denominational schools only. But the Constitution would appear to give denominational schools a ‘double protection’, as it were, through Article 44 and Article 42.
Therefore, any attempt to weaken or repeal Section 37 must argue past both freedom of religion and the right of parents to educate their children as they see fit within certain very broad limits.
Neither of these freedoms can be properly upheld if a denominational school is forced to employ teachers whose lifestyles or views are openly contradict the ethos of the school.
In fact, this would be to place the right of someone to be employed by a given organisation above the right of that organisation to have its own ethos, and above the right of parents (in the case of schools) to see their children educated in the ethos they support.
In effect, this would discriminate against the beliefs of parents and the ethos of the relevant religious organisation.
Practice of religion includes the right to live by the tenets of your religion and to pass on your beliefs to others.
The right to freely practice your religion is seriously undermined if you cannot freely establish organisations that can fully operate by its ethos and form others in that ethos. This right should only be subject to limitations in exceptional circumstances.
Thou shall not discriminate against another human being.I wonder just how far people will take this discrimination stuff.
Except in China, Africa, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Islamic states etc etc.Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
So I wonder if an LGBTI goes for a wedding dress and gets told "sorry I'm too busy" will the business get sued ?
I wonder just how far people will take this discrimination stuff.
In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls. Suggestions for future research were offered.
Isn't that a literal rainbow from God?
You're not wrong. It frequently crosses the line into the realm of Orwellian fiction. If there's a stairway to heaven and a highway to hell it says much about the anticipated traffic flow
You know I'm starting to wonder if you are blessed with an intelligence approaching my own, albeit somewhat twisted from the righteous path I "chose" as part of my "lifestyle choice"
Marriage quality: we need freedom from religion, not freedom of religion
And our govt always sticks with the spirit of conventions :Thou shall not discriminate against another human being.
Except in China, Africa, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Islamic states etc etc.
Tell it to the Muslims.
Tell it to the Muslims.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?