Queensland's New Anti-Discrimination Bill Requires Churches to End Discrimination Against Porn Stars

If there is a worse Bill before a Parliament in this country, I have not yet seen it

The glaring problem with Queensland’s new Anti-Discrimination bill is that it is highly discriminatory.

You have to hand it to the Labor Party - it takes a rare amount of ineptitude to come up with a law promoting inclusivity that, in practice, actually excludes a good deal of the population.

Or maybe it’s not ineptitude. Perhaps the Labor Party simply hold people of faith in contempt. I’ll let you be the judge.

The proposed bill seeks to impose secular values on people of faith when it come to sexual expression.

Sorry, but if you still think the State is neutral on issues of belief, you probably still think the earth is flat and that Millie Vanilli sang their songs.

The bill requires all businesses to “eliminating discrimination”.

This, obviously, sounds good. But you have to ask the question, why should my local Chinese restaurant be compelled to do anything but cook and sell dim sims in accordance with health regulations?

Why must Hot Duck Wok “eliminate discrimination”? And what does that even mean?

Rather than actively assisting the Queensland Labor Party’s unceasing social engineering project, just hurry the hell up with my Peking Duck.

While my local takeaway owner, Wong Kong, will find the new laws confusing and annoying, my local church minister will find them impossible.

Unless, of course, he’s part of the Uniting Church in which case they/them probably think they are fantabulous.

The new laws require church leaders to promote values and beliefs which are in conflict with their own.

Believe it or not, the legislation requires churches to approve of the work of actors and actresses in hard core porn films.

Section 10 of the legislation contains no less than 20 different protected attributes, of which “sex work activity”, as defined in Schedule 1 of the legislation, includes starring in a porn film.

What does it mean that Queensland organisations are to be compelled by the State to “eliminate discrimination” on the basis of playing a lead role in the latest release of Debbie Does Dallas?

Does it mean organisations must not treat staffer Seymore Butts in an adverse way when it comes to employment or membership of their organisation? That’s already encompassed by the duty not to discriminate.

The positive duty to eliminate discrimination is different and is likely to involve some level of moral approval of the protected activity.

How could my local bishop, Cardinal Sin, persuade the members of his congregation that they should not discriminate against Butts without in some manner condoning Butts’ butt on the big screen?

It doesn’t matter what the Queensland law says, Cardinal Sin can never agree to Seymore Butt.

And so the legislation inevitably brings Christian organisations into conflict with the law.

But it gets worse. The legislation seeks to impose agreement on certain values.

For instance, relationship status is a protected attribute in the new bill.

You can see where this is going, right?

The church believes marriage between a man and a woman is the God-ordained plan for human flourishing. Heterosexual marriage (is there any other kind?) is better for society generally, and for children specifically.

How then does Pastor Hal Looya fulfil his duty to “eliminate discrimination” on the basis of relationship status if he truly believes that certain kinds of intimate relationships are contrary to God’s blueprint for humanity?

How does the positive duty to eliminate discrimination on the basis of relationship status affect Pastor Hal’s teaching about family next Sunday?

The proposed legislation creates a massive conflict between the government’s values and a very large proportion of the Queensland population.

Either Queensland Premier Giggles Miles has not thought this through, or, worse, he has, and he wants the conflict.

The final part of the legislation that would impinge upon Christian organisations relates to matters of employment.

The laws would make it unlawful for a religious body to discriminate on the basis of any of the protected attributes other than religious belief, and only then if it is a genuine occupational requirement for the person to be involved in teaching religion.

I’ll give you an example …

Let’s say a female sports teacher at an independent Christian school decides to create an OnlyFans account as a way of making a little extra money to afford Chris Bowen’s electricity.

Now, of course, we all sympathise. The price of power in the Sunshine State has driven many a person to distraction. But, as you can imagine, so too does Ima Nood’s OnlyFans account.

It would be unlawful for the Christian School to dismiss Nood, because her OnlyFans side hustle is sex work activity according to the legislation and thus a protected enterprise.

That nude pics of Nood are being shared widely among the Year 9 boys is of no concern to the government, except perhaps that they are disappointed the pics promote only heteronormativity which, as we all know, the State is highly suspicious of.

I’ll give you another example …

Imagine a popular maths teacher (wait, is such a thing?) at an Anglican School is publicly lobbying to reduce the age of sexual consent to 12 years.

Matt Amatics’ political activity is protected by the legislation.

Now you might imagine Matt Amatics’ school calculates that his political lobbying is at odds with their message that kids should be abstaining from sex completely.

But Matt argues laws that ban 13 and 14 year olds from giving consent to sex are arbitrary and a form of discrimination.

In such an equation it would be illegal for the Anglican School to subtract their maths teacher from their staff roster.

One last example, just for fun …

A female science teacher at a Baptist school claims to be ‘polygender’.

Her gender identity is protected by the anti-discrimination legislation despite the fact that it has no basis in science and is not appropriate in a Christian school.

Whatever.

The problem is that Tess Tube insists that she is a woman on Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays, but a man on Wednesdays. Tess never knows what gender she is on Fridays until half way through third period.

Tess also demands to be addressed, by staff and students, as zie/hir.

Numerous parents have complained to the Principal. They argue that they chose a Baptist school in order to shield their children from gender confusion.

You cannot tell me that the majority of Queenslanders would believe Ima Nood, Matt Amatics or Tess Tube should keep their jobs.

But the new legislation would make it dangerous for Christian schools to move against the staff in examples I have given. (Incidentally, these examples are based on actual incidents reported in the news over the past few years. The names have been changed to protect the crazies, but I’m guessing you worked that one out!)

The proposed laws send people of faith a very clear message - they are not entitled to hold to their religious values in their own faith-based organisations.

The State, with its love of all things LGBTQ, will dictate many aspects of the work of these organisations by placing constraints upon their staffing policies.

Meanwhile, environmental organisations will be free to discriminate against staff who don’t recycle; political parties will be free to discriminate against members who don’t share their values, and so on and so forth.

Aside from being discriminatory toward people of faith, the legislation is completely out of step with community values.

And so, the legislation emanating from the Queensland Human Rights Commission’s ironically named “Building Belonging” report will only result in conflict.

As if Queenslanders needed another reason to boot Giggles Miles from office, but they must.

And Christians must send a warning to every other politician around the country that our freedom of religion and freedom of association are not their playthings, no matter how fine sounding their legislation.

*This article is based on Patrick Parkinson’s excellent submission to the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney- General. Patrick Parkinson AM is Emeritus Professor of Law at University of Queensland