Anti marriage group wants to legalise discrimination.

 Anti-Marriage Alliance submission 

to marriage inquiry.

 Australia recently had an inquiry into marriage equality. This inquiry specifically deals with exemptions for homophobic people and organizations.  Presumably this all came about because it was revealed that the coalitions idea of marriage equality would create a new, different and lesser version of marriage for LGBTI people, and would not be equality at all. 
 Personalty the whole idea is a bit sickening it seems to me to be like allowing rapists to be exempt from rape charges or giving racists exemptions from racial discrimination laws. And some of the groups that gave submissions to this inquiry are known LGBT hate groups, so its like inviting the hate groups to discuss how much they should be immune from prosecution or consequence for their hate crimes.
 So much for Malcolm Turnbulls promise that Australia had no place for Hate speech and no tolerance for homophobia.

 I am not going to go through all the nonsense "alt-facts", and lies of these submissions. They usually read from the same hate-book so addressing one should be enough...but which one. Thee is one that was in the news recently for distributing hate-speech pro-LGBT bullying to innocent children not long after a child died from homophobic bullying at school. You will remember that the (anti)Marriage Alliance distributed this filth on a school bus!

 Now I'm not going to go over every little detail in their submission as its unnecessary, many of the points can be refuted at once and unlike the far-radical-right i don't want to repeat myself.

 The submission makes a big deal about freedom of religion and freedom to practice that religion. Their own submission states that such freedoms are limited by their effect on the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. 

 I agree with all this completely. Indeed our own constitution has very similar amendments.  The problem with anti-marriage groups using this argument is of course that the argument is pro-marriage equality.  
 These rights don't just apply to radical fundamentalist Christians, no they apply to all religions. There are many religions and many more deity's that actualy recognize the natural diversity in sexuality. Indeed many christian churches want to marry their LGBT members.
 The current marriage laws which were changed only a while ago in Australia to exclude LGBT couples are actually in violation of the rights to religious freedoms. Because these people are being prevented from practicing their religion, they are unable to marry. It should also be noted that the current laws are unconstitutional as they force others to adhere to a (far-right) religious belief as if it is law. 
 And no, changing the law to allow marriage equality wont impede another persons religion as it will not be mandatory to marry a person of the same sex.

 The submission goes on to say that exemptions for religious ministers are not enough. They seem to want the legal ability to discriminate against LGBT married couples in all areas of life. 

 While i actually don't mind a minister not wanting to perform a marriage on basically any grounds. I do feel that the building itself should be accessible to anyone for free as these religious organizations don't pay tax or rates, because they are expected to provide a service to the community. Now if the church does not want to allow its grounds to be used by the community i also have no problems with it surrendering its tax-free status. (the submission directly addresses this but falsely claims this choice would amount to coercion).
 But as for the hairdresser, doctor, judge, or policeman being able to refuse service based on sexuality or marital status, no way. This is exactly akin to making racists immune from racial discrimination laws. I am sure if "Christians" were refused service because they were in a opposite sex marriage they would be in uproar, just look at the fake "war on Christmas" nonsense just because some stores chose to be inclusive with "happy holidays".

 They use the quote; Governments should respect the moral or religious teachings of parents / guardians. 

 They use this to attack the safe schools program. They claim that parents cant have their children opt out of the program, but i believe this to be untrue. However i think the program is even more important for children of bigots and homophobes, as they are probably more likely to bully other children. So while i think they are wrong saying they cant opt out, i do believe they shouldn't have that option, if your confident in your bigotry you should be able to have your beliefs questioned by your children when they are provided with the real facts.
 They complain that safe schools teaches that normal variance in sexuality is normal, because it differs with the beliefs of their particular interpretation of their chosen religion. Wow, how would they feel if a religion not their own was taught as fact in schools? I am sure they would not be happy at all. No (anti) marriage alliance school should be a neutral ground where real facts are taught, if you want to indoctrinate your children do it at home and on the weekends.
 They go on to bemoan that the time may come when religious schools are not permitted to be homophobic to their students, given the rates of youth bullying and suicide i personally think that day cant come soon enough. 
 And what about the rights of the child? A child should have the right to grow up knowing the reality of gender diversity (puberty is difficult enough without being surprised that your sexuality doesn't fit what you have been taught). A child should have the right to not be bullied at school? A child should have the right to not be shamed or beaten based on their sexuality, And a child should be able to grow up knowing they can marry the person they love. But the (anti) marriage alliance doesn't seem to care about the rights of the child.

 They go on and on about how horrible it is for them to see that normal sexuality is being accepted as normal,
 I fail to see how that's a bad thing. 

  
  They seem to admit that their bigotry is increasingly recognized as extremism.

  I tend to agree, but it is happening too slowly and there is still a reluctance to call a spade a spade. They seem alarmed at this but i can only say if you don't want to be labeled extremist, radical, alt-right, racist, sexist, homophobic just stop fitting that label, its really quite simple. 
 Now if you really feel it is your chosen deity or religion that forces you to discriminate, i have awesome news for you! You are actually free to choose your religion and which deity's you worship in this country. It may surprise you to know that many religions and most deity's actually recognize the diversity of human sexuality. Damn, you could even not follow any religion or powers, many people don't and they live moral, happy lives without feeling the need to discriminate. You don't even need to go that far, many Christians support the fair and equal treatment of other humans. It really is your choice. 

 In conclusion:

 It amazes me that they try to use freedom of religion to argue against freedom of religion for others. That they try to claim anti-discrimination laws should protect them but not their victims. They do this seemingly without irony or self awareness.  Could they really lack such empathy for others that they don't see the hypocrisy of their behavior?
 I think this kind of disingenuous argument comes from the fact that the legislation was changed recently to exclude same sex couples, and that the legislation does not in any way effect the various religious definitions of what marriage is. And their simply came a point where the majority of the public saw through "arguments' relating to this things too easily. You just cant say marriage cant be redefined anymore, because it has, it can and its not.

 If this is the standard of the anti-marriage submissions, it really does seem like the time of homophobic, unconstitutional marriage discrimination in Australia is drawing to a close, as the submission basically boiled down to;

 'We want to continue to discriminate against gay people without consequence and we think our interpretation of our chosen religion should give us cover to continue to do so.'

If you want me to examine more of these submissions, let me know.

Reactions to the dondale chrisis.

Reactions to child abuse.

 Most Australians were appalled and disgusted by the horrible revelations made by the four corners program. This program exposed the government sanctioned abuse and torture of children in detention. 

 Some Australians however reacted in a very different way. They took to Parliament to try to water down our anti-discrimination laws. I am so ashamed that some Australians reaction to seeig Aboriginal children tortured was to try to remove the limited protections they have under the law.

 It should be noted that our anti-discrimination laws are only ever used in the most heinous and public of cases.

 We can see a few familiar faces behind this pro-racism push. 

 There is Cory, who made a name for himself with his homophobia, but he seems to be spreading his prejudice around. Cory has loudly attacked the freedom of speech of his victims, when those victims accurately describe his attacks as homophobia.
 It should be noted that he did not seek to change the fact that the big religions are exempt from most anti-discrimination laws.

And we cant forget Pauline ruler of One Nation, who has made racism and bigotry her platform as a professional politician. Pauline is well known for her attacks on freedom of speech and expression.

 Roberts of One Nation seems to be a conspiracy theorist. I think the fact someone voted for him means we need a re-think of our voting system, like at least making information on the candidates available to the voting public.

 I cant see much information on Brian Burston, being that he is pro-racism and willingly joined One Nation we can probably assume sadly, that he shares its other bigoted views.

 Rod Culleton is another One Nation member, i cant see much about him, other then he claims to have helped farmers against the banks, and has had a larceny conviction annulled. One wonders as he is with One Nation, if he would support farmers of another race, religion or sexuality?

 These people and their pro-racism reaction to the Dondale kids expose sicken me. If they are your government representatives please let them know we need to strength anti-discrimination laws, not weaken them.

Its trash day: Scott Morrison

Its trash day:

Scott Morrison

 Scott Morrison (ScoMo) is a Liberal party (far right wing extremist) politician. 

 He was Australia's immigration minister for a time and was often criticized for his draconian treatment of refuges. 

 His actions during this time were believed by many to violate the Refugee Convention. His seemingly indefinite imprisonment of child refuges was seen my many to be unconscionable.

 In an astounding move Scot Morrison was not held accountable for his actions but instead the welfare of vulnerable Australians was placed in his hands as he became Minister for Social Services. Later he would be rewarded with the role of Treasurer which he still amazingly holds today.

You may remember that ScoMo attended the ACL gay-hate rally, and said he respected their horrific homophobic views. 

  Now in a show of complete ignorance of the issues facing LGBT Australians he has claimed he knows how the LGBT community feels because he has faced similar bigotry. 

  A straight, christian, white, wealthy male, claiming to know how homophobia feels, claiming to have suffered hate speech. It is disgusting that he can hold such a position in our government and seemingly not have a shred of empathy.

 No Scott Morrison doesn't face the same bigotry, he has the right to marry, he can safely show affection to his partner without the fear of being bashed or murdered. He has no fear of letting slip his partners gender as it wont negatively effect how companies, employers or acquaintances treat him.  
  He certainly doesn't have organizations whose sole purpose is to lobby against him having equal rights. He doesn't have politicians arguing that he shouldn't have the same rights as them. 
 He cant know the fear that some homophobe with a gun will go into his local ScMo pub and murder 49 ScoMos. 
 He has no idea how it feels to face such bigotry. That he claims to shows that he is incredibly out of touch with the effects of the bigotry that he himself promotes.

 Malcolm Turnbull claims that Australia now has zero tolerance for homophobia, and yet Scott Morrison remains Treasurer. He claimed that the 'debate' leading up to a plebiscite allowing gay people equal rights would be respectful, despite the escalating examples of disrespect, vilification and hate speech against the vulnerable LGBT community..

 Here is a link that will help you contact Scott Morrison and respectfully ask him to educate himself or politely ask him to step down.

Contact ScoMo

Even if you think ScoMo has faced 'discrimination' due to his actions, there is still one major difference. He chooses how he treats others, while homosexuals are born homosexual.

Does Telstra support equality?

Telstra supports marriage equality again

...maybe...

Back in May of 2015 a group of Australian businesses large and small stood up to bigotry and declared their support for Marriage Equality. 
Telstra One of the largest telecommunications company's in Australia was part of this group. Sadly Telstra admitted they are no longer fighting for equality. Telstra in fact claimed that the anti-gay bigots views are equal to the simple desire of LGBT people for equal rights, going so far as to describe equal rights as merely an ideology.

Telstra has now double back flipped and has announced that it will actively support marriage equality.
In this announcement Telstra did try to blame unspecified "misunderstandings" but admitted they should be stepping forward and actively supporting marriage equality. 
Though to Telstras continued shame they claim that they continue to "recognise and respect" the anti-gay bigots misinformation, discrimination, violence and terrorism.

Sorry Telstra while i apreciate that this is a step in the right direction, it really isn't good enough. You cant back away from equality and then reaffirm your on the right side of history, but also keep the bigots placated. No you cant hedge your bets on this important issue. Telstra should completely denounce the evil that these homophobes endorse.
Time will tell i suppose just how committed to equality Telstra really is. Or if we will see Howard getting worried of Telstra breaking his back flipping records.
I expect to see major ad campaigns in favor of equality, and massive donations to the cause.

To contact Telstra, and let them know you support equality,  please follow this link. 
Also please remember that there are other telecommunication company's that are consistently standing on the right side of history, that would appreciate your business.

Celebrating Bigotry

A criminal bigot receives a heroes welcome

Kim Davis the bigot who defied the law, failed to do her appointed duty,  and refused to issue marriages licenses, was released from jail into a hate rally where religious extremists praised her as a hero.
That's right, these "christians" openly praised her discrimination, her criminal refusal to do what the court has ordered, her refusal to follow the American constitution. She discriminated against gays, lesbians and religions that do accept the natural variation in human sexuality, and straight people were also discriminated against, by her, and she is being praised...

What offended me more was that some people have been identifying her with those who fought for African American rights.  When a much more accurate comparison would be that when America ended the Anti-miscegenation marriage laws, she would have been refusing to marry anyone because she didn't like interracial marriages.

She has also astonishingly been likened to a Jew under Nazi rule! This is down right offensive, it totally disrespects the over
100,000 homosexuals who were persecuted by the Nazis, not to mention the actual Jews who were victims of The Holocaust. Seeing as though she is the one discriminating, and being bigoted, i really do question what side of history she would have been on if she had actually been there. 

Her stance is indefensible, she is failing to do her job, she is defying the constitution, the law and the courts. She is denying the fundamental rights of others because of her interpretation of her chosen religions current version of marriage, which has noting to do with the legal definition.

Lets say i am Wiccan (my religious beliefs prevent me from eating meat), and i work at a vegan food store, now the owner decides to allow some fish pasta on the menu. 
I do not have the right to stop serving customers pasta. It does not impede my religious rights that the shop now serves fish pasta. If my religious beliefs do not fit with what my job entails it is up to me to seek more suitable employment. In fact if i had refused to sell fish pasta to a Catholic on Lent or Good Friday, i would be discriminating against them and their religion.

 Lets not forget that no one religion owns marriage, that it existed in many forms before Christianity and that the christian definition has changed over the years. Kim Davis definition does not reflect history, the law, other religions definitions or even other Christians definitions, that is why the freedom of religion laws are there to protect innocent people from arrogant people like Kim Davis.

The fanatical anti-gay and religious bigots seem to be trying to portray Kim Davis as some kind hero, when it is she who is breaking the law, she who is defying the constitution, she who is forcing her beliefs on others, she is the one against freedom of religion, it is she who is discriminating and being bigoted. Don't fall for it, not for one second. This is about anti-gay hate and the homophobes not liking that their views are losing favor.

 I call upon all Christians to contact there churches and demand that their religious leaders condemn this woman's actions, and renounce any implied support of her.

A reply to Barilla

Is Barilla off the hook?

I have received a reply to my blog about Coles advertising barilla. This is it;

"We are not a homophobic company. Take a look at the steps we've taken since 2013 if you'd like."

Now we cant blame Barilla for the short response as they responded on Twitter. They included a link to this Pro-Barilla article:

Human Rights Campaign says Barilla has turned around its policies on LGBT

 Now I'm going to try my best to ignore the tone of that article, it comes off a 'little disrespectful' towards the LGBT community, its nothing outright, just the phrasing and word use. It certainly wouldn't be the article i would send out if i were trying to convey sincerity, but there may be something lost in the translation which is why I'm giving it a pass.

Basically The article is saying that 'Barilla has stopped discriminating against LGBTI workers', which is awesome, but it should have been the default from the beginning. It should be the default for all businesses anyway. I applaud any company that doesn't discriminate, but after what Barilla said they need to do more than just stop discriminating against their workers.

The article also mentions a 'donation to the Tyler Clementi Foundation' which looks like a good cause. I am all for stoping bullying and homophobia, any steps towards reducing youth suicide are good steps indeed.
I am uncertain if this was a one off donation, i had a lot of trouble finding what charity's Barilla donate to or are partnered with. After the reply from Barilla i went looking again and still came up empty handed.

Donating money to worthy causes is again admirable but it is expected that a large company will do this as part of their corporate responsibility program. It doesn't go far enough in countering the discrimination and harm caused by Barialla's offensive comments.

That is where the article i was sent to ended, i did find on a Barilla related website that in 2014 Barilla did a REVIEW OF THE CODE OF ETHICS AND MANAGEMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

While i thank Barilla for sending me that link, i had actually read that information in another article, before writing my initial blog post. 

I want to clarify that when i was offended by the Barila advertisement i did check up on Barilla when i got back home. I looked for three things.

My criteria:

1. Has Barilla extensively used LGBTI family's in its TV advertisements?
    
2. Has Barilla joined the corporate support for marriage equality?
   
   
3. Is Barillas website or 'printed advertising' very inclusive of LGBTI family's?

 Findings:

1. I could find no Barilla tv advertisements that were LGBTI inclusive. This should have been a no-brainier, this is essential to counter the comments that the Barilla CEO made. Every single Barilla tv spot should have LGBTI family's, I found none. Without doing this,it makes everything else seem extremely disingenuous.
   
   
2. I could not find Barilla among the company's that have pledged corporate support for marriage equality.
   
   
3. The only family picture i could find on Barillas website was the one below (fair use/review). Now the family shown could be LGBTI i suppose, a very masculine woman in a lesbian couple, or a very effeminate man in a gay male couple, perhaps one or even both of the adults are trans? 
   
   

   

   
   
   But even so that's not good enough, the couple needs to be obviously LGBTI to show that Barilla now includes us in its definition of family. Out of the one picture of family i could find, Barilla has failed to be inclusive. That is a 100% failure rate, i mean really, if your going to only have one family make it obviously LGBTI.  
   
   
   There was another possible couple in a Barilla related site, but honestly i could not determine if they were meant to represent mother and son or a couple, so i exclude them, and if we do consider them a couple, that is two non LGBTI family's out of two.
   
   
   Their Facebook page was also lacking in any noticeable inclusiveness.
   
   

That is why i wrote the blog post, that is why i am still boycotting Barilla. It is not about if they are being homophobic to their workers, it is about makeing amends for the harm they have caused, about the company promoting diversity instead of discrimination, and about proving that their definition of family now includes their insulted, scorned and rejected LGBTI customers.

 Now if i am wrong and my 'google-foo' has failed me, please comment and 'link me up' so i can write a correction.

One also wonders why no apology was given, a simple 'we are sorry for the offense we caused, we are trying to make amends' would have served them better as a reply. 

Also why was the CEO's 'terrible apology' removed from Facebook? 

Correction: I was originally unable to find the "apology' on Facebook and after a few of the external links i found showed "page not available" messages i wrongly assumed that the "apology" had been take down, this is not the case you can find it here: "Facebook Apology" My apologies for providing incorrect information.

I remain unconvinced; if you are also unconvinced, you could do some or all of the following;

• Don’t like the Barilla Facebook page.
• Like the Boycott Barilla Facebook Page.
• Don’t buy Barilla products, take up their challenge and "eat someone else s pasta".
• Let Coles know you don’t support homophobia and bigotry. You can do this on the Coles Website (you will need a receipt) and on their Facebook.
• Let Status Quo know you don’t support homophobia and bigotry, on their own website and on their Facebook page.
  
  
  
  
  

  Thank you for supporting equality

   

  A friend said to me, and i have to agree.
  "Wouldn't it have been cool if Barilla took the opportunity to supply stand-ups of a gay couple with a child to Coles to replace their Status Quo ones?"