Ex-Politician charged with homosexual vilification, Uses Bible as defence

[Jakexe]

This story popped up as the first thing I read all day. Basically while campaigning for a political party she grouped homosexuals with paedophiles in saying "I don't want gays, lesbians or paedophiles working in my kindergarten. If you don't like it, go to another kindergarten." and was then found to of engaged in vilification by the NSW tribunal board, she was ordered to issue an apology in a nation wide newspaper at her expense. She has refused to do this as of writing.

Now she's taking it to court and is using the bible as a basis of legal evidence:

"In a 21-page written submission, Ms Corbett’s Victorian barrister Marcel White defended his client's comments on legal and factual grounds, referring directly to the Bible as supporting evidence."

The lawyer for a woman who likened gays and lesbians to paedophiles while campaigning for Bob Katter’s Australia Party has told a tribunal bracketing homosexuality with “other notorious kinds of immoral conduct” was a persuasive strategy used by some of the “greatest contributors to Western civilisation’s philosophical understanding”.


This isn't aimed to bash religion, everyone has the right to religion, but how far should/does that belief go when it comes to legal rulings. Does 100% faith in a religious text count as a reason to discount the law? Do you think she has a leg to stand on legally, even in a secular country.

I'm concerned of this setting a legal precedent if it ends up gaining any traction in the court, not that I personally think it will but it's dangerous in a country that already has possible weakening discrimination laws.

*Source

[THE Bigzoman]

It's Australia. So different rules. The same country that seems so hellbent on censoring videogames and the like. So it doesn't surprise me that they do this as well.

In the U.S, i'm sure this would count as government reprisal and fall under first amendment protection.

In the most cases, religious text isn't cite-worthy material.

[-aiko-]

I doubt it will be, but it will be a sad day for Australia if this is accepted as 'evidence'.

[Puck]

It will only backfire when she realizes that she has no idea what the bible actually says about homosexuality.

[Lellybaby]

She should and I hope gets slapped down.

This is Duck Dynasty incident 2.0, but on Australian soil wont be able to hide behide freedom of being able to lie through your teeth (speech).

[DEATHETERNAL]

Those are some tyrannical laws you got there Austrailia.

[Endus]

The Bible, or any faith text, isn't a defense. It may be a source, but all that does is define your faith as pushing its followers to, in this case, break the law (which, to be clear, I think goes too far).

Having a Biblical source to support your bigotry doesn't make you not-a-bigot. It mean your faith is the source of your bigotry, and is itself bigoted. And it's no excuse for law-breaking. If your faith allowed for honor killings, that would still mean you're a murderer when you commit one, and you will go to jail for doing so. Same difference.

[Zhangfei]

Ah, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's. Methinks the Bible's implicit secularism is going to be a turd in the legal defence here.

[Time Sage]

I really wish this dood was reading this, because I have a message for them:

Religion is like a butt. Everyone has one, but please buddy, keep it to yourself.

If you're going to harass people with it, soon people are going to stop taking you seriously.

It will only backfire when she realizes that she has no idea what the bible actually says about homosexuality.

Nothing that's relevant to most people. They're probably one of those people who just listens to the priest instead of gathering their own opinion.


Also. Jesus would totally be pro gay. Dude hung out with prostitutes and lepers, at the time the scum of society because they were people too.

[Borgmore]

Well...in my opinion I wouldn't want gays working in a kindergarten. Those people are just wrong in so many ways, not religious ways though. God has given up on them.


[Infracted]

[Time Sage]

Well...in my opinion I wouldn't want gays working in a kindergarten. Those people are just wrong in so many ways, not religious ways though. God has given up on them.

Oh really? Please re-read my post and check what god thinks of gays. Nothing because we're the same as you.

[Xisa]

She should and I hope gets slapped down.

This is Duck Dynasty incident 2.0, but on Australian soil wont be able to hide behide freedom of being able to lie through your teeth (speech).

That was a matter involving a private business. This involves a state run facility. It changes things completely.

[Time Sage]

Wasn't hte Duck Dynasty thing a publicty stunt anyways?

[Xisa]

I really wish this dood was reading this, because I have a message for them:

Religion is like a butt. Everyone has one, but please buddy, keep it to yourself.

If you're going to harass people with it, soon people are going to stop taking you seriously.



Nothing that's relevant to most people. They're probably one of those people who just listens to the priest instead of gathering their own opinion.


Also. Jesus would totally be pro gay. Dude hung out with prostitutes and lepers, at the time the scum of society because they were people too.

Well...no, he wouldn't. There is condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament as well, not just in crazy-ass Leviticus. The religious argument against Homosexuality is that it doesn't produce children, so it's inherently an act of Hedonism.

Would Jesus talk to homosexuals, associate with them, and try to help them as he could on his journey? I'm sure he would...that's literally what he did. That does not mean he would approve of it. The religious phrase is "Hate the sin, not the sinner".

- - - Updated - - -

Wasn't hte Duck Dynasty thing a publicty stunt anyways?

Sort of. It was a setup by the guy that Interviewed him to generate publicity for his publication, if that's what you mean.

[Time Sage]

Well...no, he wouldn't. There is condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament as well, not just in crazy-ass Leviticus. The religious argument against Homosexuality is that it doesn't produce children, so it's inherently an act of Hedonism.

Would Jesus talk to homosexuals, associate with them, and try to help them as he could on his journey? I'm sure he would...that's literally what he did. That does not mean he would approve of it. The religious phrase is "Hate the sin, not the sinner".

- - - Updated - - -



Eh, not really. It was a setup by the guy that Interviewed him to generate publicity for his publication, if that's what you mean.

Ah. I will admit I'm not big reader of the bible myself (And am willing to admit it) but my point remains that Jesus wouldn't shun us. Also in this day and age.... there's a good chance that god would agree we need to slow down with the baby making, I doubt he'd want society to collapse or us to run out of resources due to overpopulation.

[Xisa]

Ah. I will admit I'm not big reader of the bible myself (And am willing to admit it) but my point remains that Jesus wouldn't shun us. Also in this day and age.... there's a good chance that god would agree we need to slow down with the baby making.

No, he wouldn't shun you. He didn't shun people. His entire journey was to spread the word of God and "save" as many people as he could by helping them see the light. Not speaking to you defeats that purpose.

That doesn't mean he'd approve of your actions, he'd just try to get you to change them.

Birthrates are directly linked to economic stability. The more economically stable you are, the more money you have to spend on hobbies. If you're poor, fucking is pretty much one of the only true pleasures and entertainments you can afford to have. Birth rates have dropped in every stable 1st world planet in the nation except the US, and that's due to the mass of poor, uneducated Hispanics crossing the border. Once that group stabilizes economically, they will level out as well.

[CosmicGuitars]

"factual grounds, referring directly to the Bible as supporting evidence."

.. Uhh.. good luck with that one, lady.

[Time Sage]

No, he wouldn't shun you. He didn't shun people. His entire journey was to spread the word of God and "save" as many people as he could by helping them see the light. Not speaking to you defeats that purpose.

That doesn't mean he'd approve of your actions, he'd just try to get you to change them.

Birthrates are directly linked to economic stability. The more economically stable you are, the more money you have to spend on hobbies. If you're poor, fucking is pretty much one of the only true pleasures and entertainments you can afford to have. Birth rates have dropped in every stable 1st world planet in the nation except the US, and that's due to the mass of poor, uneducated Hispanics crossing the border. Once that group stabilizes economically, they will level out as well.

Also the trend of poor people having lots of kids to reap more benefits. Not that this is necessarily a common thing but it does happen on occasion. Not trying to be nasty about this mind (or be all dur hur all poor people have kids so they don't have to work. I don't actully belive this)

[Zhangfei]

Ah. I will admit I'm not big reader of the bible myself (And am willing to admit it) but my point remains that Jesus wouldn't shun us. Also in this day and age.... there's a good chance that god would agree we need to slow down with the baby making, I doubt he'd want society to collapse or us to run out of resources due to overpopulation.

There are New Testament rejections but none by Christ himself. He didn't have anything to say about homosexuality. It's just Paul who has a metaphorical stick up his arse.

[Deleted]

I find it funny about the mention of strategy used by some of the “greatest contributors to Western civilisation’s philosophical understanding”. I'm not entirely sure, but I'm pretty sure Hitler and Stalin did it too, are they to be grouped up in that?
Also I know Putin made the same comparison.

Legally speaking she has no basis for her argument since it has no legal basis, only a religious and philosophical one. It is also a clear example of stereotyping and is a rather toxic thing for a politician to say.
Really it's kind of depressing that a modern western countries politicians (who represent the people) seem to equate homosexuality to pedophilia, it's just stupid and serves only to further spur ignorance and intolerance.