Roughly 63 per cent of Australians back right of celebrants to discriminate
Most Australians think religious and civil celebrants should be able to refuse to officiate same-sex weddings, a new poll shows.
The Guardian poll of over 1,800 people showed 63 per cent supported the right of celebrants to discriminate, while 43 per cent thought other businesses should be allowed to refuse service for same-sex weddings.
Men were more likely than women to support businesses being allowed to discriminate.
Coalition voters were more likely to back the right to refuse service, with 54 per cent saying they agreed with it.
The poll also addressed other issues that came up during the marriage equality debate.
Almost half of respondents, 42 per cent, supported the right of parents to remove children from classes that do not support a ‘traditional’ view of marriage.
Among Coalition voters, 52 per cent backed parental rights to remove children from classes.
The issue of religious freedom has been debated as parliament moves to legislate marriage equality.
Poll respondents were divided in whether they thought more religious protections in law were necessary, with 37 per cent agreeing, and 42 per cent saying current laws are sufficient.
Amid increasing political instability, 37 per cent of those polled supported an early election, with only 47 per cent agreeing the government should run its full term.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull yesterday ordered parliament to sit until marriage equality is passed before the end of the year.
Dave is right, conservatives are using gay marriage exemptions as an attempt to open the floodgates so religious discrimination will become enshrined in law. Their ultimate aim is to repeal anti discrimination, abortion and all minority rights legislation and plunge us back to the 1950’s. We must stand up to them on this!
George Brandis is talking about putting a preamble about religious rights into the same sex marriage bill. I wonder how many Australians realise that this will mean that any interpretation of the bill will then be guided by these words (Act interpretation Act). It will enshrine James Patterson’s hate fuelled exemptions into law and mean that our rights will be nullified. This is a sneaky, underhanded way to enshrine discrimination and should not be allowed. Never ever!!!!
Civil Celebrants arguing it’s against their Religious beliefs?
This is confusing,why?
Hetrosexuals avoiding a Church Wedding as they do not want a Religious Wedding to begin with…so opting for a Civil Ceremony…usually in a Park..no Priests..no Crosses
So if Hetrosexuals or Homosexuals ask a Celebrant,what’s the difference?
Honestly we fought for years…for Equality…not conditions
If we must have these sorts of protections for “religious freedom” then it will be absolutely appalling if they reflect the Senator James Paterson view of the world and ONLY allow for discrimination against same-sex couples. If religious freedom is all the go, then make it much broader so that lots of folks of other demographics also get caught up in it and let’s see how much support it gets then.
Why should Catholics be forced to participate in the weddings of previously divorced straight people when they know the Vatican says these marriages are forbidden, for example? Let’s see how the 63% goes down when the significant number of divorcees in our community works out this could affect them.
If hard-core protestants don’t want to teach marriage equality to uphold their religious freedom then don’t make them but remember that under the same freedom muslim schools will teach their students sharia law and watch the conservatives struggle to tell us if they still think that’s a good idea.
These surveys are one thing but I’ll bet the 63% haven’t thought through the full consequences of their view.