The purpose of the Ruddock review was, in part, to placate those who felt threatened by the passage of marriage equality, as illustrated by the absence of any LGBTI people on the panel. The review has undoubtedly spurred a debate about religious freedom, but it inadvertently highlighted the discrimination faced by gender and sexually diverse people to a broader audience.
Attempts to downplay the report have instead drawn attention to the fact that religious organisations and schools are largely exempt from anti-discrimination laws, allowing them to discriminate against students and employees based on their sex, sexuality, gender identity and relationship status. Schools have used these laws to refuse students with same-sex parents, to expel gay students and to sack gay teachers.
Such laws are out of step with community values. The overwhelming majority of Australians do not support discriminating against gay students and teachers, a point summarised in a joint letter from 50 LGBTI organisations: we no longer consider it fair to treat people differently because of who they are.
The laws also harm the health and wellbeing of gay people. LGBTI Australians are more likely to experience anxiety and depression, and to self-harm and attempt suicide. These adverse health outcomes are directly related to discrimination, harassment and stigma. Fear of rejection and feelings of shame directly harm young gay people. However, the discussion has revolved around talk of religious freedoms.
Some religious leaders have insisted that the exemptions remain. Anglican Archbishop of Sydney Glenn Davies argues that 'church schools should not be forced to play by secular rules'. Of course, the freedom to adopt, practice and abandon religious beliefs is a human right. As such, it should be protected in any future bill of rights and deserves inclusion in anti-discrimination legislation.
However, as is recognised in human rights law, religious freedoms extend only so far as they do not contradict the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. While all Australians should enjoy religious freedom, they also bear the right to non-discrimination and a right to the highest attainable standard of health.
Further, it it is unclear at first glance how positive discrimination is related to practising a religion. Some, including some ALP senators, argue that it is about maintaining a shared ethos. Shared beliefs are essential to religious communities, but these arguments would only apply in a limited number of cases.
"In the end, it is not a zero-sum competition between religious groups and gay people, but instead a conversation about the kind of society we want for all Australians."
For instance, it makes sense that a religious organisation may wish to ensure that the beliefs of its priests or clerics align with doctrines of their religion as a requirement of their job. However, such an occupational requirement does not apply to education generally, ruling out discrimination against students, teachers and other employees.
Similarly, some argue that discriminating against some people is necessary to preserve a particular religious identity. However, enforcing orthodoxy in this way looks a lot like punishing apostasy and heresy, to say nothing of the logical acrobatics necessary to argue that adherents should be allowed to discriminate while faith-based discrimination should be illegal.
Interestingly, the Ruddock review suggests that schools be allowed to discriminate so long as it is in the 'best interests' of the child, begging the obvious question — when is it ever in the best interests of a child to experience discrimination? Never, arguably. Simply put, religious freedoms do not include a licence to discriminate.
The Morrison government has claimed that it will remove exemptions targeting students, and Labor has suggested amending exemptions targeting teachers. However, the issue is more significant than this: religious organisations can also turn away LGBTI people from essential resources including adoption, disability, housing and family violence services.
These are not private religious practices, but public services which religious bodies voluntarily offer. It is reasonable to expect that groups operating in Australian society should adhere to the same rules as everyone else, which means serving clients first and foremost as human beings in need. Everyone deserves to be treated fairly.
While pundits have framed the issue as a contest between religious groups and LGBTI people, this brushes aside the reality that many LGBTI people are themselves religious. After all, the most likely targets of the exemptions are people within religious organisations and schools. People should be free to engage with their community, express their faith and live openly without fear of intolerance.
The laws should be amended to narrow the exemptions, but we should also cast the net wider. Protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex people should be extended not only to students and teachers but to employees and clients more generally (priests and clerics excepted). In the end, it is not a zero-sum competition between religious groups and gay people, but instead a conversation about the kind of society we want for all Australians.
Joshua Badge is a lecturer in philosophy at Deakin University. Follow him on Twitter @joshuabadge
Main image credit: Karl Tapales/Getty Images