Marriage equality bill contains discrimination law loophole, NSW warns
|
Version 0 of 2. The federal government’s same-sex marriage bill contains a loophole that could see florists and bakers refuse to serve gay weddings by claiming to be religious organisations, the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board has warned. The board, part of the state’s justice department, made the warning in submissions to the Senate committee looking at the federal government’s same-sex marriage bill exposure draft. The bill, released before the Senate vote blocking the government’s proposed plebiscite, contains exemptions to discrimination law that would allow not only civil celebrants and ministers of religion to refuse to officiate gay weddings but also religious bodies or organisations to refuse to provide goods or services. The board, which administers the Anti-Discrimination Act in NSW, warned that marriage law does not define a “religious body” or “religious organisation”, raising the possibility that anybody could claim discrimination law did not apply to them. It said that nothing in the exposure draft “appears to limit [the exemption’s] operation to religious bodies or organisations that have been formally recognised as such”. “Accordingly an organisation with no recognised religious connection could claim to be a religious organisation based on the beliefs of its owners or members” and refuse goods or services incidental to gay weddings, it said. The loophole identified suggests that, in practice, florists and bakers and all other wedding service providers could claim to be exempt from discrimination law on the basis of their individual faith. In its submissions the Australian Christian Lobby called for the bill to explicitly exempt such providers from discrimination law, arguing that freedom of religion is a fundamental right that protects both individuals’ beliefs and practices based on those beliefs. The board called for the discrimination law exemption to be clarified “so that only recognised religious bodies and organisations can rely on it”. “In this way a church hall could seek to rely on the exemption to refuse a venue booking but a civic function centre could not, regardless of the religious beliefs of its owners.” The submissions were signed by the acting president of the Anti-Discrimination Board, Elizabeth Wing. In its submission the Australian Capital Territory government opposed exemptions allowing civil celebrants, religious bodies and religious organisations to refuse gay weddings. It said the exemptions appear “to formalise existing institutional prejudices and discrimination into law rather than remove them”. The ACT accused the federal government of designing amendments that “appear to be intentionally designed to undermine the protection afforded to LBGTIQ people”. The ACT said there was “no rational basis” to allow civil celebrants to refuse weddings to discriminate where the marriage was not between a man and woman. It said the exemption for religious bodies and organisations went “significantly beyond” what was needed for freedom of religion and allowing the refusal of goods and services was inconsistent with state and territory discrimination law. It suggested instead that ministers of religion should not be required to make a place of worship available for a wedding. In September when Guardian Australia revealed plans to exempt “conscientious objectors” from discrimination law, the veteran LGBTI rights campaigner Rodney Croome warned that “undefined exemptions” could mean wedding service providers like bakers and florists would be free to discriminate. In separate submissions to the Senate inquiry, Australian Marriage Equality and Just Equal argued that religious freedom was adequately protected by the draft bill’s provision, allowing ministers of religion to refuse to perform weddings. AME said the new exemptions for “religious organisations or bodies” to refuse to provide services to gay weddings should be removed or at least more clearly defined. Just Equal similarly argued against discrimination law exemptions for religious organisations that provide commercial services, warning that gay couples in rural and regional areas may struggle to find service providers as a result. |