Second, as a man who is travelling to NZ in 1 1/2 weeks to marry my partner, which I am so excited about, I think can speak from the sharp end of the pointy blade – we would not and would you really want to force any church to marry 2 people who are in love as they would do so only because of the law instead of because they believe it the right thing to do.

If we want to right to marry then we should allow those who do not agree to disagree but in a respectful manner. We see them as bigots, they see themselves as spiritual believers. Us and they are never going to agree unless we are willing to find a compromised middle ground.

In the Bill proposed, it will not exempt a person who holds a religious belief from denying access to any supply of wedding products unless it, the entity belongs somehow to a church, eg a hall next door.

Scott

I’m curious as to the extent of the religious exemptions. If it means churches have total say over whom they do and don’t marry, that’s nothing new. As it is today, churches can decline to marry straight couples for any reason they like – it would be totally legal for a church to say to a mixed race couple “we don’t believe in mixed race marriage” and there would be no recourse. Churches are allowed to be bigoted and hateful and marriage equality isn’t going to change their right to be revolting people.

If the religious exemptions extend to retail establishments (bakers, caterers, function centres etc) then that’s bullshit. It could contribute to a massive rise in sectarianism, which was a big issue in what Pauline Hanson calls the good old days.