Freedom from religion

[brewer]

If the parochial school rents to the general public, makes no stipulations in their rental advertisements/agreements and does not inquire as to the nature of the party, then yes. 

There is this thingy called "due diligence". Due diligence needs to be applied in the face of their convictions.

Edit: If the school/church has a history of rentals to entities that do not hold their convictions, the school/church has opened the door and forfeited their right to say no.

There is difference between renting to a celebration/organization that takes no express position contrary to the churches beliefs (like a chess club) and ones that do, like a divorce party, craft beer fair (for temperance denominations), or bingo fundraiser (for those opposed to gambling).

I'm very suspicious of the notion that the government can force people to do things they don't want to do for the privilege of being allowed to do the things they want to in the absence of a compelling state interest. It presumes that individual rights are granted by the state to be given and taken away at its discretion.

If the entity (person/organization) is religion neutral and the church/school has performed due diligence to ensure that the event does not conflict with their beliefs then fine, rent away. However, if the church/school has a history of looking the other way on some religious issues and/or is not consistent in belief application to renters that becomes discrimination and the state has every right to step in. They can't have their cake and eat it to.

---

This is very relevant so thanks for brining it here. The No campaign in Australia also argued that marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of having a family, however the majority of the country disagreed so that argument has been put to bed. But there are civil and religious ceremonies and I'm pretty sure in Australia they are essentially legally equivalent. I do find it difficult to understand why some same sex couples want to marry in a religious institution but they do. So the question remains, why should religious institutions be allowed to discriminate?

Let's use an equivalent example to show what I mean. If a black African man and a white Australian woman wanted to marry and they turn up to a church in Australia, is the priest allowed by law to say to them "Sorry but the church does not believe in mixed marriages - marriage is between a white man and a white woman only". Would they get away with it? No, because it is racial discrimination and there are laws that protect against that happening by any organisation or person in the country. Yet it is being argued that the church should be allowed to discriminate against a section of community based on their sexual orientation.

The more interesting question is why religious leaders want to be unethical. This is something that I don't understand. I say stop all discrimination and if we have to legislate to stop it, then so be it.

bold mine

Are those same sex couples members of the religious institution? My guess is no if the institution says no. It's their club (the church), they get to make their own rules.

I think the same holds with the black/white issue. I think they can get away with it if the black/white couple are not members. 

However, the exception is if the church has a history of allowing nonmembers to marry outside of the churches beliefs. That opens the door. 

Not sure if this applies to Oz: https://www.quora.com/Constutional-Laws-...rientation

---

They should be forced to perform actions against their religious beliefs when those primitive iron-age religious beliefs contradict the ethical structure of modern society. No animal sacrifices and no discrimination against people for any reason. Non religious people should be making requests or even demands of religious institutions on ethical grounds. And, yes, the "damn cake thing" did come up in parliamentary debate!

bold mine

Good luck with that pie in the sky ideal. 

Who's ethics? Yours when your not even in the club?