Senator Paterson says most Aussies want the right to discriminate against gay couples

Senator Paterson says most Aussies want the right to discriminate against gay couples
Image: Photo: Facebook / James Paterson.

Liberal senator James Paterson has defended his conservative new bill, saying its provisions for discrimination against same-sex couples and gender-diverse people are what Australians want.

The new bill, which is set to be presented to parliament this week assuming a Yes outcome in the marriage equality postal survey, would override existing anti-discrimination laws.

It specifies that providers of wedding services may refuse to serve people on the basis of specific beliefs, including beliefs against same-sex marriage, sex outside marriage, and trans identities.

Some have criticised Paterson for targeting same-sex couples and trans people in the bill, while conspicuously not allowing for discrimination against marriages on the grounds of other ‘beliefs’.

“But why aren’t you protecting the freedoms of people who conscientiously object to interracial marriage?” tweeted MP Tim Watts.

“We have moved beyond a time when shops had signs about who they would and wouldn’t serve—the marriage discrimination bill threatens this,” tweeted MP and marriage equality activist Alex Greenwich.

Paterson, who claims to support same-sex marriage, told BuzzFeed News that Australians want “protections” allowing them to discriminate against gay and trans couples.

“The only significant issue in which a large proportion of the community are calling for these sorts of protections is on the issue of same-sex marriage,” he said.

“I’ve never heard anyone call for exemptions other than these.”

Fiona McLeod, president of the Law Council of Australia, called the bill an “extraordinary and perilous” attack.

“The bill would allow people to refuse to provide goods and services on the grounds of belief, thought and conscience, taking us well beyond religious beliefs into unchartered waters,” she said.

McLeod said freedom from discrimination is a fundamental human right.

Anna Brown of the Human Rights Law Centre called the provisions in the bill “bizarre”.

“It provides immunity to anyone with a particular view on marriage, not just same-sex marriage but all sorts of ideas about marriage, family and gender described as ‘traditional’,” she said.

Social media users have slammed the bill and the discrimination it would allow.

Actor Harry Cook tweeted, “The fact that a bill like Paterson’s can even be considered proves what kind of assholes we have running this country.”

“To put the LGBTI community through this ridiculous, damaging plebiscite and then suggest a marriage equality bill that will increase discrimination is simply shameful,” posted another person.

Turnbull government MPs have largely rejected the conservative bill, according to The Sydney Morning Herald.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said that Senator Dean Smith’s bill “has been around for some months and is clearly a good bill to start with”.

The results of the marriage equality postal survey will be announced tomorrow morning.

https://twitter.com/tomsavage95/status/929991825397506048

You May Also Like

4 responses to “Senator Paterson says most Aussies want the right to discriminate against gay couples”

  1. Who the hell voted this fruitcake into parliament? If this whole process has shown anything, it’s how out of step with the rest of Australia the parliament and politicians really are.

    Why are we paying these people?

    They don’t listen to us and even when we tell them what we want, they twist it to what they want.

    I will never again vote Liberal or Labour for any election, even if it was to pick them to run a cake stall!

  2. Even the founder of Christianity advocated walking a “second mile” to help an enemy and said his followers would be known for their Love, not their Prejudice and Discrimination. He talked about “inasmuch as you do kind things to the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me”….and if you don’t then “depart from me, I never knew you”. Talk of Unconditional Love without action is hypocrisy which upset him the most. People who put others down and judge can’t claim to be followers of Jesus. They, as a substitute for Love seek a sense of value in thinking they are better than others, meanwhile are usually hiding their own secrets that stop them accepting themselves. Tony Abbott wants everyone to “not have sex outside of marriage”, like he was not able to do, while wanting to be a Priest. I hope Senator Paterson and Tony Abbott can find out how Big Love is through this journey. Valuable People, value people. Those who don’t realize their worth often abuse. Denial and Power are the ingredients of abuse. Acceptance and respect for Honesty are the ingredients of Love. Love is not a threat but hate can be. Dr. Wendell Rosevear O.A.M. “…..make Love Infectious”.

  3. I wasted 10 minutes I’ll never get back looking at Paterson’s bill, you can get it off the media section of his website. What’s fascinating is how he’s meddled with the definition of “traditional” marriage to deliberately ensure that the only victims of discrimination under his bill will be same sex couples.

    His bill starts off by (presuming the Yes vote gets up) defining marriage as something that Australians either consider to be “(i) the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life; or (ii) the union of 2 people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life;” which is basically the “traditional” and “modern” views of marriage, fair enough.

    But then rather than just transfer this definition down the line when he’s talking about people’s right to discriminate if they’re in the wedding services industry, he chops his definition of traditional marriage in half. He leaves in the bit about men and women, but chops out the bit about “to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”. For the Catholics, this is as big a deal as “man and woman” according to Vatican doctrine.

    But the only people who can be refused service are gay couples. Folks who have divorced their “traditional” marriage spouse and are lining up for their second time around cannot be discriminated against even by fervent Catholic bakers.

    Paterson’s bill is not about, as he claims, religious freedom and acting on conscience. He has deliberately manipulated the definition of traditional marriage to ensure that no one’s religious freedom can be used to do anything against a straight couple.

    Or he just hates the Catholics, I can’t really tell.