The price of freedom to marry should not be freedom to discriminate
Image: Australian Marriage Equality national director Rodney Croome seeks to decipher Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson's plea for gay marriage last week, in which he also called for respect of religions.
AT his first National Press Club appearance, Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson .
Many true conservatives will agree with his quote from Edmund Burke: 鈥淎 state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.鈥�
In other words, to preserve marriage by keeping it relevant you must sometimes reform it.
But buried in Wilson鈥檚 compelling case was a worrying suggestion.
He said: 鈥淭here is concern that if the law changes civil celebrants, venues and photographers will face fines if they don鈥檛 participate in weddings they disagree with, as has occurred in the United States. I do not think that is constructive way forward.鈥�
Is Tim Wilson suggesting civil celebrants, wedding caterers, florists and photographers effectively be granted an exemption from state and federal anti-discrimination laws?
If so, where do we draw the line?
Should the exemption be just for same-sex marriages or any marriages wedding service providers disagree with, such as聽the marriage of divorced partners or interracial marriages?
Should the exemption extend to same-sex commitment and civil union ceremonies, wedding receptions and honeymoons, the baptisms of the children of same-sex couples, or the funerals of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans* people?
I can鈥檛 agree with any further exemptions to anti-discrimination on any grounds, including religion.
This is not because I am against enhancing personal freedom.
It鈥檚 because I don鈥檛 believe all freedoms are the same.
Allowing same-sex partners to marry recognises the value of our love and commitment as well as our capacity as adults and citizens to make one of the most important life decisions anyone is ever called on to make.
It does not practically or materially harm anyone else.
Allowing a reception-centre manager or a hotel receptionist to turn away a same-sex couple demeans the couple, damages the inclusiveness and reputation of the community of which they are part, and does nothing to protect the faith or values of the person doing the discriminating.
Denying a service can too easily create direct practical and material harm.
In short, freedom to marry enhances human dignity, while freedom to discriminate diminishes it.
It鈥檚 always possible Tim Wilson thinks making concessions on religious freedom will swing some people of faith over to marriage equality.
If so, he鈥檚 wrong.
It鈥檚 true that many people of faith who continue to oppose marriage equality do so because they fear their religious freedom may be violated.
But the way to allay these concerns is with the facts.
First, no Australian religious celebrants will be forced to marry same-sex couples.
The existing legal provisions guaranteeing their freedom to turn couples away will be further entrenched and strengthened by marriage equality legislation.
As for other wedding service providers, in its submission to last year鈥檚 marriage equality Senate inquiry the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) could only cite two examples in the whole world where legal action has been taken against such a provider because they refused to participate in a same-sex marriage for religious reasons.
This is despite the fact that same-sex couples are allowed to marry in 19聽countries across four continents with a combined population of about 800 million people.
What鈥檚 more, both the examples cited by the ACL were from the US where marriage equality and religious freedom are far more culturally sensitive and legally contested than in Australia.
As Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson should be calming unfounded fears about marriage equality leading to violations of religious freedom, not legitimising them.
By suggesting there鈥檚 some foundation to these particular fears he risks confirming in the minds of some religious folk that the other fears they have about marriage equality may also have some foundation.
I鈥檓 not against compromise to achieve important goals. But compromising with unfounded fears never fosters rational policy outcomes.
What the marriage equality debate needs are voices of reason and authority talking about the actual, factual impacts of marriage equality overseas.
My hope is that Tim Wilson becomes one such voice, just as he is a powerful voice for marriage equality generally.
Rodney Croome is the national director of Australian Marriage Equality and 2015 Tasmanian of the Year.
Are you kidding me, for god sake people, are we Australian’s still “debating” marriage equality in 2015 – for god bloody sake people – just allow it and move on!
This is the Tim Wilson who was supposedly offered Gillian Trigg’s job by Brandis. How he became a human rights commissioner. Sigh.
This whoke controversy is making Tim look very foolish indeed in the press.
Unless it’s resolved with Mr Brandis everything he says should be taken with a grain of salt
Can a journalist ask him, if he accepted the position with the potential outcome of being Gillian Triggs replacement.
So shameful for the gay lobby to use him in anything he does with the community
He’s unsuitably underqualified for his role at nearly $1000 per day for shallow propaganda
I will suitably discriminate against gay liberals that are not supporting decency and humanity for all gay men worldwide
Resign when Mr Abbott leaves Tim…your partisan relationships are dubious to say the least..
Tim is a smart young man and maybe ambition has overrided his judgement too much.
Hope he reboots himself soon to save his credibility after our p.m is replaced.
Politics is a vocation Tim…don’t forget that point you made earlier on in your career.
Haters going to hate even more when your hero is replaced pretty soon
For a middle class gay man that comes from the most liveable city in the world discrimination has no place at all in todays modern society.
Freedom to abuse is disgusting in any form.
As usual everyone misses the point about religion. It’s protected under sec 116 of the Australian Constitution. No constitutional protections are provided on the basis of sex or sexuality.
If a kosher and halal butchers are exempted from selling pork then is it such a stretch to exempt Christian bakers from providing certain products? How is this even an issue?
So there’s a Gay Mafia that Tim is part of with his undisclosed vested interests.
How many conflicts of interests does he have as a Commissioner that we don’t see in public?
He’s looking like a very dubious appointment that’s only there for monetary reasons.
I can also discriminate against Tim in our establishments for being a complete Wanker can’t I???
He and his partner have been staunch supporters of Tony Abbott for many years
That’s why he should leave when Mr Abbott gets replaced as Prime Minister by Malcolm Turnball
The irony in all this is that Tims partner is a teacher who would be discriminated against at a religious school because of his status…
Really Tim…you expect us to believe that you’re own nastiness is a trajectory for the gay community.
Give us a break and swiftly resign
My gay liberal friends who are professionals think you’re a weird joke
White gay elitist fascist on speed.
Maby Thanks to Rodney erudite response.
A gay man like Tim being a bigot and being appointed in his current role speaks volumes about his own vested interests.
To be given Ms Triggs job in such dubious circumstances says a lot about his lack of credibility on all these issues
He’s selfish and shallow and needs to resign along with Mr Brandis who appointed him.
Thanks to Roodney who displays more depth and maturity to being a great gay role model.
Tim…go and disclose your vested interests or be branded as a Gay godfather.
Religious organisations can only claim “religious freedom” when they stop receiving public money from government grants, and stop receiving tax and other exemptions from the government!
True equality will only be won when religious organisations stop hiding their homo-hatred behind theological rhetoric. There is no basis in any of the sacred writings to support hatred of LGBTIQ people.
Tim Wilson is and remains a bigot
Tim Wilson is a bigot-loving stain. Religious organisations have plenty of rights to discriminate against whoever they want (you can’t force a church to allow any particular couple to marry in their church if they’re against it), so that’s not the issue here. The only question is how to deal with non-religious businesses run by bigots. If Tim Wilson is worried about cake makers and photographers having to make cakes for or photograph people they disapprove of, why offer them protection and legitimise that discrimination? Should they also be allowed to reject mixed race marriages if it offends them? Maybe hotels run by homophobes could start enforcing ‘straights only’ rules? And why stop at homophobes – racists could decide to refuse service to muslim customers, the possibilities for a socially divided country are endless!
Just being practical, if a same-sex couple realised their local cake store was full of bigots, they’d probably go somewhere else, so there’s unlikely to be any issue. But if an issue did arise, I don’t think the solution is to enshrine the rights of bigots in law.
It’s pathetic to watch Triggs being hounded by the Abbott govt over daring to write a report into children being abused in custody, while Tim Wilson is spending his time worrying about the rights of homophobic shopkeepers. The man needs a sacking.
If you provide goods or services to the general public for lawful purposes you must also adhere to the laws pertaining to how you conduct your business. It is currently prohibited in law to refuse services or goods to someone on the basis of the protected attributes in a variety of equality and equal status laws, this includes sexual orientation and gender expression. This should not change just because civil marriage is extended to include gay and lesbian couples.
If you are a religious body of faith or connected to same for the purposes of what you offer – a Catholic priest for example, you already have a legal exemption. If you are not, a civil celebrant, and provide services under civil law you must adhere to the statutes of civil law or face the remedies and penalties provided for in those pieces of legislation and potentially a civil case in the courts.
It is correct to say equal marriage rights should not be a doorway to further discrimination. This is why no further exemptions in respect to the provision of goods and or services should be called for, proposed or enacted within the bounds of civil society.
Religious bodies of faith can already do as they please.