Freedom to refuse must be defended

Source: The Catholic LeaderThe brave new world is upon us. Freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of speech are all under threat by the politically correct social justice warriors (SJW). Their modus operandi is to pressure businesses, both large and small, into conformity with their agenda.

We have myriad examples in recent years, like when the Greens party led the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Jewish businesses. The rainbow lobby have exerted their influence on our corporates to support and fund the homosexual marriage campaign. When one of our biggest companies, Telstra, withdrew their public support for the campaign they were targeted by the SJW and bullied back into acquiescence.

Rainbow lobbyists have also targeted small businesses in an attempt to stop them being involved with groups that have a different perspective on marriage or the Safe Schools Coalition program.

I personally experienced this when a speaking engagement was cancelled due to threats of violence by sections of the queer movement. It also happened a few weeks ago to the Marriage Alliance Forum when a conference had to be cancelled because of intimidation and threats to staff at the venue. No sensible person can support such behaviour.

However, there is a difference between that type of conduct and the non-coerced decision of an individual business to decide they don’t want your business – for whatever reason.

It happened last week to publishing company Connor Court. Their usual printer, McPherson’s, refused to print the book Stealing from a Child: the Injustice of ‘Marriage Equality’ due to the subject matter and content.

My guess is McPherson’s management only read the title and wouldn’t have a clue about the actual content, but the author Dr David van Gend defended their right to make the decision they did.

Van Gend said “…it is within their right as a private company to discriminate against people like me on ideological grounds …We are not like some people who would take anti-discrimination action. We do not think those sort of laws are worthy of a free society and we do not use them.”

Not everyone shares Dr van Gend’s views but in this instance he is right.

However, I cannot help but contrast the reaction if the boot was on the other foot, so to speak. If a printer refused to provide services to one of the sanctioned SJW causes I can only imagine all hell would break loose.

Complaints would be made, protests organised, owners named and shamed and legal action would be forthcoming.

We have seen as much happen to the Catholic Church in Tasmania for upholding Catholic doctrine. We have seen bakers fined in America for refusing to support homosexual weddings and we have seen a Christian baker in South Australia targeted for protests merely for saying they don’t support redefining marriage.

And yet, when commercial television networks or taxpayer-funded public broadcasters have refused to carry advertisements supporting traditional marriage there has been little comment. 

These display a similar conscientious refusal but completely different responses.

And this is the essence of the dilemma we now face; is it okay for any business to say they simply don’t want your business for any or no reason? Personally I think it is, but that freedom has to be defended and protected so that it applies to any business, no matter what side of a debate they are on.


  • commented 2017-02-02 09:22:37 +1030
    Yes all this government intervention on what we are allowed to say and not allowed to say is an Orwellian type of mind control aimed at promoting victim industry and keeping social engineers and the political elite in a job. All the wasted money associated with that social engineering is paid for by taxpayers. There seems to be no concern about how much trashing of our economy that social engineering causes. These social engineers have no concern, or take any responsibility, for passing on huge deficits to future generations.

    Another Orwellian social engineering control that is damaging our economy are quotas on the make up of men and women and ethinc groups etc. in government organisations and private enterprise. What’s wrong with employing the best person for the job? Surely taxpayers deserve get the best person for the job to to get the best value for their tax dollars.

    Why is it that we can not provide any economic protection to our manufacturing industry and we are losing jobs to overseas competition that isn’t tied up in social engineering red tape. It’s about time Australians had an anti political elite alternative to vote for who have the interests of real people at heart. Australia will become another European economic basket case if we allow social engineers and the political elite to continue to dictate their “progressive” agendas.
  • commented 2017-02-01 18:01:51 +1030
    It’s now very clear that section 18C is being used to both push political and political agendas.. The fact that the QUT case has dragged on for more than three years and the Commission’s self-initiated witch hunt against Bill Leak highlights that of 18C. Democracy depends on the free flow of information and ideas. Opinions must be shared in ‘a free and open encounter’’ because it is the competition between ideas that produces the truth. ‘’The true and sound will survive. The false and unsound will be vanquished. Government should keep out of the battle and not weigh the odds in favor of one side or the other.’’ The best policy decisions result from robust and uninhibited debate. They cannot be prosecuted for what they say in Parliament, including hate speech. Why should we accept free political speech for politicians but not for ourselves? After all, it is the debate that starts outside Parliament that drives debate inside it. The only way to stop this nonsense about hate speech and censorship is to be repealing all the anti vilification laws that prevent any proper scrutiny of minority ‘protected’ groups. Speech is free or it’s not. That there might be good reasons against a person saying something is no reason to make those reasons the issue and to then deny that freedom has nothing to do with the matter. Hence vilification laws ARE infringements on free speech, not (merely) protections of the vulnerable. What is most troubling in the Bolt debate is the denial of this by those who dislike what he says. The reason that these laws are on the books is precisely to deny freedom of speech in certain areas. It’s delusional to deny this in the name of some other principle. , unfortunately many of our fellow Australians (usually so-called social progressives) can no longer tolerate the rigours of open debate and now seek refuge in legal sanctions and ‘enquires’. The problem with laws that selectively control what we can or can’t say, apart from their being tyrannical and not democratic, is that it amounts to the parliament trying to back winners. It doesn’t work in economics and it can’t work in the wider culture. It is through free speech that culture grows and prospers. If we clamp down on it, we end up distorting debate and preventing it producing the goods that open debate does produce. We produce fear, protection of the powerful and stultifying dogmatism. We are all diminished when anyone’s freedom of speech is taken away. Even if the law never prevents us from saying things we might want to say, today it certainly prevents us from hearing things which we might want or need to hear. It prevents us from knowing what our fellow citizens believe. It denies us the opportunity to refine our thinking and develop our own ideas.Section 18C is the problem it makes it unlawful to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” a person because of their “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”.political activists and their lawyers have come to realise that section 18C can be used to aggressively pursue political goals.Too often the law is being used opportunistically. Section 18C is being used not as a shield but as a weapon. In silencing, or threatening to silence, opponents in a debate using legal means, complainants remove the possibility of debate. It’s unhealthy and it’s undemocratic. it prevents discussion of many issues and that should be of concern to all Australians. So ridiculous is the application of Australian racial vilification laws that they can now be used to punish anti-racist sentiment
  • commented 2016-11-09 08:27:38 +1030
    Colin Gilmore,
    I have to add to my previous comment because I am glad you would bake me the cake, but your refusal to label the cake with my belief that “Colin Gilmore is a bigot” isn’t currently a legal practice. Therefore, many people lobby the government because we believe it is our civil right to hold whatever belief we want and the government decides to make this a legal practice. The Anti-discrimination Commission which is the “Thought Police” make a decision that you had no right to refuse my beliefs that “Colin Gilmore is a bigot,” which is no different to the fantasy “same-sex marriage.” It just isn’t acceptable to apologise to me, but they decided you should spend a month in jail as a warning to others and you’re required to pay me $135 000 for insulting and offending my beliefs that “Colin Gilmore is a bigot.” How would you feel if your bakery was your families only livelihood? How would you feel if the “Thought police” made you do a re-education course so you never rejected someone’s beliefs again and had to accept, celebrate, and participate in the belief that “Colin Gilmore is a bigot?” The cost of the court’s ruling would send your bakery into bankruptcy and the only job you could find was being a garbage collector. You need a job to provide for your wife and 5 children. This is exactly the same type of situation some Christians have experience since the legalisation of “same-sex marriage,” which has tried to force them to go against their moral conscience and pretend in a fantasy “same-sex marriage.” Christians can’t pretend that sexual activities are the same as sexual intercourse or a “one flesh” union to consummate a marriage. Christians can’t pretend marriage is only a legal union with a legal state marriage certificate. Christians can’t pretend that natural human reproduction should be contaminated with a scientific experimentation of human reproduction. Christians can’t pretend to live in a genderless society. Christians can’t pretend their children should be educated to accept homosexuality and gender theories based on Marxist’s ideology.

    You might not believe that “Colin Gilmore is a bigot,” but now you have been labelled it, I hope you get some sense that you shouldn’t called Christians a “bigot” or “haters” because they have a different belief system to you. I have never heard of a Christian youth group threatening anyone in Melbourne, but there are plenty of reports of gangs (non-Christians) in Melbourne attacking and threatening people. Just look at the amount of money Christians give to the poor and Scotch College raised over $20 million dollars from the Scotch family to build a Science building. Now compare this to the amount of taxpayers money the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators demand to be spent on their life-style such as $15 million for a pride centre, $8 million + $21.7 million on education programs to promote homosexuality and gender theories and ignore the current scientific research on sexuality and gender. Plus millions spent on PReP trials in Victoria and NSW in order for men can have unprotected sex with men infected with HIV/AIDS, despite this spreads unprotected STDs such as gonorrhoea which has become drug-resistant and is spreading across Britain. Also, the federal and state government both fund the Australian AIDS Council. I won’t even detail all the other health costs associated with the gay life-style because the costs definitely add up for the Australian taxpayer.

    I grew up in an immoral environment where all the sexualities were practiced and everyone I knew was receiving some type of government welfare. A 14 year old got pregnant to her step-father and she went on to have 12 children to 5 different fathers and this life-style was all paid by the Australian taxpayer because she has never worked outside the home. However, a nation of Australians deciding to have negative behaviours including sexual behaviours will send this country broke in no time. You might like to believe that the treatment of anal repairs and anal cancers are for free because anal sex is normalised in our society, but there are significant costs. Treating “green vaginal discharge” is difficult as STDs are becoming drug-resistant, but the educational programs details about mixing bums, vaginas and mouths as if this is normal and all STDs are treatable. They do suggest a party hat, but they make out that sex is so good and fun with multiple partners in a porn animated video. I have 3 children in the Victorian Education System so I am well informed about the current educational programs which abuse children’s mind, body and soul.
  • commented 2016-11-08 18:37:41 +1030
    Colin Gilmore,
    I am glad that you understand that not all discrimination is wrong. I agree there are certain characteristic a person can’t change about themselves (innate, biological and fixed) which we shouldn’t be able to discriminate against. However, ideas, values, beliefs and thoughts should freely be discussed and people can choose to agree, disagree or stay neutral. I was reading a Policy on Age Care today which was about sexuality. You claimed that people shouldn’t be able to discriminate on sexuality. However, this policy was giving clear guideline to nurses on when to discriminate on sexuality such as a consenting client might want a nurse to masturbate them for their own sexual pleasure, but nurses have a legal right to refuse because it is a criminal offence. A consenting client might want a nurse to ring for a prostitute, but a nurse has the right to refuse because bringing a prostitute into a Age Care Centre is a criminal offence, despite the client’s room is treated as their own house. There are many other areas that health professionals have to discriminate against a clients/patient’s sexuality, but it would take too long to go into detail on this blog.

    Psychology Professor Jordon Peterson from the University of Toronto stated, “The demand for use of preferred pronouns is not an issue of equality, inclusion or respect for others. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It’s a purposeful assault on the structure of language. It’s dangerous incursion into the domain of free speech. It’s narcissistic self-centredness. It’s part and parcel of the PC madness that threatens to engulf our culture.” The word “pronouns” could be replaced with the word “same-sex marriage” which is a oxymoron like the “jumbo shrimp.” The Australian government hasn’t explained the reason a sexless same-sex married couple should be treated differently from the majority of 2 people of the same-sex whom live together in a non-sexual relationship. Jordon Peterson stated, “We should refuse, in no uncertain terms, the demands by the ideologically possessed that we speak their special language or we should await the consequences, and they won’t be pretty.” I don’t believe that “heterosexual” is a person who is exclusively attracted to the opposite-sex. I haven’t known anyone in all my life who is exclusively attracted to the opposite-sex. Therefore, no government authority should make me use this word because it doesn’t make sense like the “jumbo shrimp.” Jordon Peterson stated, “Social Justice Warriors construct fictional worlds, then try to bring real world consequences upon those who refuse to live within them.”

    There is no doubt we need more fierce warriors for freedom, democracy and common sense, before we lose it all. The “Thought Police” constantly spies on citizens to make sure they’re not thinking rebellious thought. Thought crimes are severely punished by Big Brother. Resistance is our only hope of stopping PC madness that believes marriage is “between any 2 people.” You could claim that the Bible is full of “hate speech” because it warned people against sexual relationships with the same-sex and God never stated, “man and man” and “woman and woman” should unite as “one flesh” in order to fill the earth with people, but this is impossible even to God who made all things. However, I would question you on the word “hate speech.” Is it hate speech when a mother tells their daughter that they don’t need a dad because they have 2 mums? Are you a bigot because you don’t agree a marriage contract between one man and one woman are making a public life-long commitment to a faithful sexual relationship which can reproduce children (natural human reproduction)?

    Billions of man-woman married couples around the world and over the centuries have made a marriage contract based on a faithful sexual union between one man and one woman which has reproduced new-life and your a bigot if you don’t agree with them. So you may claim you’re not a bigot when you agree with someone, but you’re a bigot because you’re against the historical understanding of marriage or “one flesh” between a man and woman. You can try and confuse language if you like, but this is no difference to the word “dating” isn’t what it use to be because Tinder has hooked it up with the “meaningless sex.” I tell people my son is going out with his girlfriend, and I never say he is dating her. The World Health Organisation recently included heathy men and women as being “infertile” if they want children, but don’t have a partner. I don’t believe you should be labelling people “bigots” and “haters” etc because you’re choosing a different pathway in life. You might believe in “same-sex marriage” and have lots of information to support your case, but there is a another side to the story that you’re refusing to explore because of your bias against a “one flesh” man-woman union.

    There has been a case of a gay man who went for a scientific experiment which determined that he was sexually attracted to women, but he didn’t like the idea that this information made him “bisexual.” So he deliberately chose to identify as “gay” rather than “bisexual” because he was more comfortable with that life-style. Thanks for being willing to bake the cake! and I don’t think you want to be labelled a bigot, but we disagree on language and in particular the meaning of the word marriage. I believe you think marriage is a civil right like a birth certificate and everyone has an equal right to purchase it and this leads to a civil right to scientific experimentation of human reproduction. However, I believe marriage is a behavioural practice of a public, life-long, faithful sexual relationship between one man and woman which can reproduce children (natural human reproduction). This behavioural practice of marriage doesn’t need a legal state marriage certificate. I believe a marriage certificate is like to a University certificate in that it is meaningless if you only purchased it. There is a criteria to get into University like there is a criteria for marriage and same-sex couples don’t meet this basic criteria of a male-female sexual union. You might believe your marriage is progressive because it isn’t based on a faithful sexual relationship, nature, scientific evidence, history, culture, and religion which is exactly the opposite my marriage. This is the reason my NSW marriage certificate can stay in the NSW Marriage Registry Office and a same-sex married couple needs this marriage certificate to try and convince anybody that is willing to listen that they’re a legal married couple. The majority of Australians will view same-sex married couples as only ever having a legal union. However, man-woman married couples couldn’t care about the legal union as they desire a faithful sexual union for life. Have a look up on Australian Immigration and Social Security as they want a lot more concrete evidence of a marriage relationship than a piece of paper from the government. Therefore, a new marriage based on "love and “commitment” are abstract concepts and aren’t enough for these Australian authorities. This is the reason Express online reported in February, “sham marriages have increased 850% and authorities are overwhelmed in the UK.”
  • commented 2016-11-06 09:51:25 +1030
    Janine, I don’t believe a business shouldn’t be able to discriminate on any grounds. Just not sexuality, religion, gender, race, age and any other personal characteristic not relevant to the business functioning.

    I would bake your cake. But I would also reserve the right to assert that I’m not a bigot. That’s the key to free speech: anyone should be free to communicate anything, no matter how heinous, but anyone should also be free to call out bigoted, hateful, or simply not factual communication wherever it occurs.
  • commented 2016-11-02 23:00:59 +1030
    Colin Gilmore,
    If you truly believe a business shouldn’t be able to discriminate on any grounds, then if you were a baker I could get you to bake a cake with the words “Colin Gilmore is a bigot” You can’t be insulted or offended because I would be a paying customer and I have a right to believe in what ever I want to believe in. If you don’t believe marriage has anything to do with procreation, then you believe marriage is only a piece of paper from the government. Then the Australian immigration authorities are going to have a hard time detecting a “sham marriage” against your belief that marriage is only a piece of paper from the government. I can’t pretend sexual activities are the same as sexual intercourse to consummate a marriage. The Australian legal system doesn’t even treat anal and oral sex as the same as sexual intercourse.

    The Australian Government would be creating its own religious belief that marriage is “between any 2 people,” and people can be children so the government has to define people that are over the age of 18. There is no supreme being which has declared, “any 2 people can get married,” so this law goes against the Australian Constitution section 116 which precludes the federal parliament creating laws in establishment of a religion, and the government is imposing any religious observance to “marriage between same-sex couple” and this prohibits the free exercise of any religion which only believes “marriage is between one man and one woman which can reproduce children (natural human reproduction).” The Australian Marriage Act includes religious priests/ministers because they have always been involved in the marriage practice, unlike same-sex couples which have always been in the practice of sexual activities (anal and oral sex, pretend sexual organs, masturbation, pornography, chemical (drug) sex). You’re never going to convince the Australian society that marriage is for the purpose of same-sex couples so they can practice sexual activities in order that they won’t commit suicide (harm minimisation).

    The Resilience, Rights and Respectful Relationship program and Safe School Coalition Programs details homosexuality and gender theories which hasn’t been based on scientific evidence. There definition of “heterosexual” is a person who is exclusively attracted to the opposite-sex. I have never met any person in all my life who is exclusively attracted to the opposite-sex. Mayer & McHugh (2016) reported, “Few topics are as complex and controversial as human sexual orientation and gender identity.” They examined a vast body of scientific literature from several disciplines…Since the relevant literature is rife with inconsistent and ambiguous definitions." The science doesn’t support a “gay” gene or gays being “born that way.” This scientific report was extremely critical against children changing their gender by surgery and hormones.There is no scientific evidence for changing Birth and Marriage certificates as appropriate treatment for a mental illness.

    Mayer, L.S & McHugh, P.R. “Introduction,” Sexuality and Gender: Finding from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences, The Atlantis, Number 50, Fall 2016, pp. 10-12.
  • commented 2016-10-21 14:07:33 +1030
    Janine Adam, your assertion that marriage has anything, other than symbolism at best or anachronism at worst, to do with procreation is simply stupid.
  • commented 2016-10-21 14:04:16 +1030
    Businesses can refuse a customer only on the basis of their inability to pay or their being legally not permitted the product or service. Refusal on any other grounds – especially sexuality (gender, religion, age, etc.) – is discrimination. Bigotry.
  • commented 2016-09-30 19:09:56 +0930
    Jon Norris,
    Marriage has existed before the creation of government and the church, but it has always been a man-woman sexual union which can reproduce new-life (natural human reproduction). You’re an atheist, but that shouldn’t stop you believing in natural human reproduction. After thousands of years of marriage being at the heart of natural human reproduction, somehow you believe it should be changed to mean scientific experimentation of human reproduction – a male skin cell changed into a egg to be fertilised by a sperm to grow 9 months in a rent-a-womb from a poor woman in Asia. Some of us have a moral conscience and we don’t want to participate in a scientific experimentation of human reproduction involving abusive sexual activities. Best wishes to you, but I don’t believe in your oxymoron “same-sex marriage” as this is a “sham marriage.”
  • commented 2016-09-30 10:35:39 +0930
    Well I guess if someone is ‘against’ someone else it’s everyone’s right to decide which side they are on and whether they want anything to do with either person/business. That’s what happens when individuals have different ways of thinking and morals.
  • commented 2016-09-29 10:56:39 +0930
    Well said Cory, Bravo, It is great to read some morally honest and good ethical views. It is a bit sad when I can’t turn on radio / TV or flip a news paper page without being bombarded with gay propaganda. It would be great to see detour from the current path Australia is on.
  • commented 2016-09-29 09:55:03 +0930
    This divisive debate about gay marriage has gone on too long. Some gays don’t want a debate or plebiscite because of a chance it may upset one of their brigade. Large sectors of the our community justifiably believe marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman and don’t want traditional marriage devalued. Sectors of the hard left are resorting to violence, threats and bullying to push their gay agenda as a result of the push for gay marriage.

    Turnbull is pushing gay marriage as he is totally ego driven and wants to go down in history as the PM that led the country to having some type of “progressive” change. Turnbull failed on his attempts to turn Australia into a republic so he thinks the next best “progressive” cause is to bring in gay marriage. Labor are successfully doing all they can to show Turnbull to be out of touch, ego drive, against traditional Liberal values and incompetent at bringing in reforms to make our economy competitive.

    Certainly there are gays in committed relationships that justifiably want some type of legally binding contract between themselves. That want could be met by having a legal contract that mirrors most legal aspects of a marriage contract except it recognises the gay contract as being different to a marriage contract between a man and a woman. That difference should be based on recognising the reality that gay couples can’t naturally have children and that they don’t get rights to adopt, have IVF and sue, bully and intimidate others who may not support gay relationships.

    When it comes to making some type of compromise to get gay couples bound up in a legal contract I expect that would be a compromise acceptable to most people.
  • commented 2016-09-29 00:27:21 +0930
    Jon Norris stop wasting our time leftist scumbag and any other scum that wants to try and cry wolf that gays and tranny’s and pedophiles who started safe schools are being bullied and not being given more than they deserve, remember who the little old humble gentleman Cory Bernardi is and let the poor man speak common sense and morality for goodness sake and for Australians sake!

    I stand with Mr Bernardi and Dear Pauline Hanson, Do You??
  • commented 2016-09-28 23:19:28 +0930
    Cool. I’m atheist and I can refuse all religions? Or I can refuse all non white people if I’m racist? You are doing the same as those who want to put sharia law above our law. I respect faith and alternate views but you don’t get to dictate secular laws. If you want that, join the Hanson party or parties that rule in Iran that are theocracies that control activity based on religion. Hypocrites!
  • commented 2016-09-28 22:28:22 +0930
    The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators want the Australian government to establish a legal “sham marriage practice” for the purpose of 2 people having a right to purchase a legal state marriage certificate as this will become the only evidence of a marriage in order to get the legal status of “marriage” or a legal “sham marriage.”

    Imagine if the pro-abortionists were demanding the government to change the word “pregnancy” to be used instead of “abortion.” Then they could claim that the legal practice of pregnancy (abortion) allows a woman the right to have control over her pregnancy (abortion). The Pro-assisted suicide movement could demand the government to change the word “Life” to be used instead of suicide. They could then claim that the legal practice of life (suicide) allows vulnerable people control over their life (suicide).

    The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators have divided nations, governments, companies, businesses, unions, communities -churches, sporting groups -AFL, CWA, families and individuals because “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron as marriage means difference not the same. A Christian baker can’t pretend sexual activities are the same as sexual intercourse – “one flesh” union to consummate a marriage with a possibility of creating new-life (natural human reproduction). A Christian photographer is unable to believe an unwanted neonate is bodily waste deserving of death by doctors/nurses assisting in a legal abortion. A Christian florists is unable to believe vulnerable people’s lives should end in a legal assisted suicide by doctors/nurses. The LGBTIAQ lobby dictators are demanding government to create laws which force Christians and Christian churches to change their moral conscience on homosexuality and transgender by accepting, celebrating, educating and participating in the “sham marriage practice.”

    At the heart of man-woman marriage is a sexual union which can reproduce new-life (natural human reproduction). A man-woman marriage without the sex would be a complicated legal friendship. Adultery/affairs and sexless marriage break the basic agreement to a marriage contract. If my husband and I are were ever made to purchase our legal NSW marriage certificate it will be for a divorce. Therefore, a legal state marriage certificate doesn’t keep a marriage loving, healthy, life-long and stable. I have been married for 18 1/2 years and it is recorded in a church, family history books, Family Bible and a church marriage certificate (no state number). My husband and I have made a joint tax return when we lived in America so it isn’t a requirement to show evidence of a legal state marriage certificate for a man-woman married couple.

    My husband and I live as a married couple and it isn’t the government and laws defining our moral conscience, marriage, family, husband-wife and child-parent relationships, children’s education etc. However, “same-sex marriage” has to change moral conscience, marriage, family, husband-wife and child-parent relationships and children’s education because the majority of two people of the same-sex whom live together are friends and aren’t in any type of sexual relationship. If there isn’t any sex between a same-sex couple then everyone would call this friendship, but same-sex couples have never defined their sexual activities as the same as sexual intercourse – “one flesh” union which can create new-life (natural human reproduction).

    The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators are trying to convince the Australian government that all Australian should have a legal right to marry their same-sex friend because marriage isn’t a man-woman sexual union which can reproduce their biological children. Then the divorce law can change so people can sign a piece of paper when they want this legal consensual union (non-sexual) to end and there is no reason to wait 12 months because the majority of 2 people of the same-sex which are living together aren’t having a sexual relationship. The Family Law Act should make no reference to any biological children in a divorce because same-sex couples can’t have biological children together in a marriage. When the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators convince the Australian government of establishing a legal “sham marriage practice,” then my husband and I don’t have to identify our “one flesh” union and our biological children with this “sham marriage practice.” The Australian Immigration authorities will have an extremely hard time identifying “sham marriages” if the government makes legal a “sham marriage practice” because an exclusive, sexual union between man-woman which can reproduce their biological children aren’t identified as marriage anymore. There are a lot of poor people around the world whom would be willing to live with someone as a friend in order to receive Australian government marriage benefits by only purchasing a legal state marriage certificate as the only evidence of marriage.

    Why should the Australian government treat a married couple (non-sexual) differently from the majority of 2 people whom live together as friends in a non-sexual relationship?
  • commented 2016-09-28 22:04:48 +0930
    Just want to say you will read comments from people who have a bone to pick with you more than the silent majority because we don’t need to comment to agree with you.
    I have thoroughly enjoyed viewing some reactions and it goes to show how blind citizens are these days.
    Keep up the good work Cory, I really respect you as an individual for having your beliefs that you strongly stand by. There definitely needs to be more politicians (and citizens) like yourself with a backbone
  • commented 2016-09-28 21:57:51 +0930
    Cory, I’m quite jealous of your ability to get these generation snowflake types to flip out. Keep up the great work.
  • commented 2016-09-28 21:22:00 +0930
    So if any Australian service provider refused to serve the descendents of Italian immigrants like yourself on the grounds that past family preferences were linked to Mussolini and by association Hitler, you would be ok with that? Seems you would. Not the brightest are we buddy?
  • commented 2016-09-28 20:42:21 +0930
    Does this include being allowed to serve racist Liberal bigots? If so, I’m all for it. Cory, I’m assuming you will mail order all of your food in future? After being refused service at multiple checkouts in the supermarket, you will learn how bad this idea is. When having to pay someone else to buy you food.. and having THEM refuse you too? you will learn.
  • commented 2016-09-28 19:37:44 +0930
    Two possible walk away a from the last election:

    1. Pickups by cross bench and one nation indicate that Australians by and large agree with Pauline Hanson’s policies and the best thing to do is go wingnut to win back votes. ( good luck out wingnutting Pauline …)

    2. Pickups by Cross bench and one nation indicate that Australians feel liberal and labour are not serving their needs and vote for others as a protest against the political class being out of touch. Perhaps listening to voters and acting in their interest might be best approach.

    Which one is more likely to be true for the majority of Australians. Can you figure it out Cory?
  • commented 2016-09-28 19:29:10 +0930
    Well done… Your well written article simply highlights what an embarrassment you are to Australia on the global stage.

    Congrats also on making the liberal party look like their stuck in the last Millenia. Handcuffing the PM just ensures more seats for the cross bench and labour.

  • followed this page 2016-09-28 19:12:49 +0930
  • commented 2016-09-28 18:26:09 +0930
    I’d make sure I’d start petitions with every airline and major hotel line to refuse service to you Cory. I’m sure a lot of them would comply, as most major companies support same sex marriage. Would make your job fun with travel.
  • commented 2016-09-28 18:25:01 +0930
    I’d make sure I’d start pertains with every airline and major hotel line to refuse service to you Cory. I’m sure a lot of them would comply, as most major companies support same sex marriage. Would make your job fun with travel.
  • commented 2016-09-28 17:49:41 +0930
    “For any or no reason”? Surely we can’t allow people to refuse service, accommodation or employment just because someone is Christian? (Or Jewish).
  • commented 2016-09-28 16:21:46 +0930
    You’re absolutely right, Cory. Believe me, if you ever came into my shop, I wouldn’t hesitate to refuse to serve you.
  • commented 2016-09-28 16:15:19 +0930
    I think you raise an interesting point, but where do you draw a line, if any?

    If a business has an intrinsic right to refuse service to a gay person based upon a conscientious objection, then the same logic dictates that businesses can refuse service to, say, an Aboriginal woman “for any or no reason”. The logical extension of your argument supports the right of a business to racially discriminate. Both Aboriginals and the LGBTI community are protected under Federal discrimination laws, so how do you reconcile this with your stated position that businesses can refuse service for any or no reason?
  • commented 2016-09-28 13:54:12 +0930
    A terrific book indeed Cory:
    And keep up your good work as well.