Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697641912411.pdf (Australia)
SUBMISSION to Committee on the Human Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief to the Committee Secretary Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade PO Box 6021, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600 Telephone: 02 6277 2313 Facsimile: 02 6277 2221 Email: religionorbelief@aph.gov.au by Jon & Susan Kirk 10th February 2017 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ We are writing to demonstrate how redefining marriage as anything other than the union between one man and one women will adversely affect the right to freedom of religion or belief here in Australia.
When such a fundamental institution of our society is eroded by redefinition, then very closely following that are huge implications not just to religious freedoms, the freedom of speech, employment and education for both individuals, businesses and organisations.
It exposes our society to the risk of complaints under state and territory anti-discrimination laws if they express their view of marriage or cannot comply with or conform to changed social, educational or legal requirements that flow from that redefinition.

It is not a possibility that redefining marriage will negatively impact our freedom of religion or belief; it is a given.
In other countries people have been prosecuted and fined for declining to provide services for same-sex weddings on grounds of religious beliefs or conscience.

For example:- - Robert & Cynthia Gifford of New York, owners of an Albany-area farm, were found by the State Division of Human Rights (DHR) to have violated the civil rights of a lesbian couple when they declined to host the couple same-sex wedding ceremony in 2012.

They were fined $10,000 & an additional $3,000 in damages.
The McArthur family, owners of Ashers family bakery in Northern Ireland, were found guilty of discrimination for declining to provide a cake with a pro-same-sex marriage slogan.

- - Aaron & Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Oregon, US, were fined $135,000 for not providing a cake for a same-sex wedding.
The freedom of religion should include the freedom to practise those beliefs since it is clearly recognised in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHRs Article 18) and the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPRs, Article 18).

“Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
This right shall include freed to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.” There is no doubt that the redefinition of marriage would expose both individuals and businesses to the risk of complaints of discrimination under the Anti-discrimination laws in Australian states and territories if they didn’t agree with or cannot comply with or conform to changed social, educational or legal requirements that flow from that Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 142 redefinition.
Free speech, the right of parents to decide the education they want for their children and to hold and express religious or cultural beliefs about marriage without being discriminated against in employment or education would all be impacted by anti-discrimination laws by redefining marriage.

The right to free speech is recognised in the ICCPRs (Article 19) and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 19).
It has been clearly demonstrated when marriage is redefined to included same-sex marriage ordinary people are punished for exercising that right to free speech and stating that they believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Further, Australia has already had a number of instances where people have had complaints laid against them because they expressed this view.
For example:- - Toowoomba GP, Dr David Van Gend had a complaint laid against him by a gay activist for stating his view that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, as requested by the Courier-Mail newspaper which published his article alongside another opinion piece in favour of same-sex marriage.
- Archbishop Julian Porteous of Hobart (and all members of the Australian Catholic Bishop’s Conference) were prosecuted under Tasmania’s Anti-discrimination Act for providing the Bishops’ Statement on marriage to parents of children in Catholic schools in his archdiocese.

We can see that laws already exist that take away the right to conscience, please do not add to the restriction of our freedoms.
For example, the right to conscience objection in health care is seriously impacted by abortion laws which require health professionals to refer a patient to another practitioner if they have a conscientious objection to abortion.

Proposed euthanasia has similar provisions.

In addition, laws such as Victoria’s Health Complaints Act 2016 which restrict counsellors in counselling on homosexual attraction.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 20(1)) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 21) both recognise “the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association”.

In contrast the reality is, there are currently laws in Australia that restrict these freedoms prohibiting any communication or protest in relation to abortions within a radius of 150 metres of premises where abortions are provided.
The redefinition of marriage in any way, shape or form would result in further restrictions and adversely affect the right to freedom of religion or belief.

Exemption clauses do not protect our freedoms.

In countries where marriage has been redefined, ordinary people have lost their jobs, had their businesses sued, lost their livelihoods and faced jail time for simply disagreeing with same-sex marriage.
The only way to ensure the freedoms and beliefs of all Australian people are protected is to guarantee that marriage is not redefined.

We’d like you to listen to the words of Doug Mainwaring "I'm Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage".

In his conclusion he says, "Marriage is not an elastic term.

It is immutable.

It offers the very best for children and society.

We should not adulterate nor mutilate its definition, thereby denying its riches to current and future generations."
(www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/) We implore you to protect our freedoms.

Thank you for your consideration in relation to this very important matter.

Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 142