It's about discriminating against everyone else.
And, in the case of Miracle Hill Ministries, that means not letting anyone mentor or foster children in their care — for which they get oodles of state money — who isn't a (straight) Protestant Christian who's able to offer a proper testimony from their pastor. Not just gays, but Jews, Catholics, atheists, Buddhists, or unchurched need not apply.
That would be sketchy enough as it is, but that they get taxpayer money (money raised not just by RightThinking Christian Protestants, but Jews and Catholics and atheists and Buddhists, etc.) to discriminate on the basis of religion is intolerable. Yet all expectations are that that the federal Dept. of Health & Human Services is going to agree that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) means that Miracle Hill can accept taxpayer money via state contracts and still discriminate based on religion.
Ironically, the article includes an interview with a Jewish woman who was discriminated against by Miracle Hill … but nonetheless she's a staunch Trump supporter.
“I think that if Trump knew about this in detail, he wouldn’t be for it,” Lesser said. “Because he’s not a religious nut.” She’s a proud supporter of the president — and, she offered, she wanted Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to be confirmed.
Yeah, let me know how that works out for you, Ms Lesser.
[h/t +Stan Pedzick]
South Carolina Is Lobbying to Allow Discrimination Against Jewish Parents
One Protestant group wants the federal government to sponsor discrimination.
This is a moderately warm topic in these islands right now. The government has been sitting on a report they commissioned on religious freedom (the right to be a bigot) for fear of backlash. Some of it recently leaked, leading to all parties scrambling to promise to legislate against its recommendations. Then this came along. (The 'smoking ceremonies' are burning and wafting of the smoke of eucalyptus leaves, similar to incensing.)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-19/sydney-anglicans-banning-ssm-yoga-on-all-church-property/10397748
+Travis Bird Speaking from an American perspective, I have no problem with a church regulating activity on its own sacred grounds or in its own church-focused activities. I would not expect a Catholic church to hold SSM ceremonies, or ceremonies and activities harkening to other faiths. Under American constitutional law, what a church does within its own membership and sacred spaces is largely its own business (with some exceptions, such as building codes and not allowing human sacrifice).
The challenge (again from an American perspective) is where that overlaps with non-religious aspects to churches, e.g., if a church owns commercial property, or runs a commercial business on its own property, American law would require those properties or businesses to comply with civil rights protections.
(Or, put another way, a church cannot be compelled to hire a priest who doesn't meet their doctrinal requirements, but cannot discriminate in hiring an administrative assistant to the priest, unless that admin has specific religious duties as part of the job. A church cannot be compelled to perform SSMs, but if they have a hall that they rent to the public, they cannot say "except for gay people". Note that these provisions of US law and judicial precedent remain under attack by some "religious freedom" zealots.)
It sounds like part of what makes this such a big thing in Sydney is that the Anglican Church in Australia, presumably as a (former?) established church, own significant secular property that they now are trying to exercise religious control over.
The part of the situation I describe with the above article that is problematic to me (legally) is not that Miracle Hill does what it does per se, but that it does so while acting as a government agent, i.e., while taking in state money. If it operated independently and was acting as a religious institution, that would be their prerogative, no matter how I personally feel about it. But using taxpayer money to promulgate religion is (or is supposed to be) a big red no-go zone under constitutional law. (Needless to say, this is constantly under attack, too.)
Charitable donations to a church should NOT be income without a tax to it. Too many churches have abused the fact that they can get any money from their followers and NOT be accountable for such money, I can name a whole slew of them that get away with what I would term as ROBBERY from the rich churches, money held in their hands to do what they want. Same as the Catholic Church, they have mafia bank accounts and that is ALLOWED. St-Thomas which was recently revealed, asked Jesus * Master why did you not pay your dues * Jesus replied They DO NOT know what they are doing. Plain and simple Jesus asked his disciples to leave ALL their worldly goods to spread HIS message, what the churches do, they GREW exponentially in their funds, building HUGE, massive buildings and Jesus was not even within those building. Love is built in your hearts, WE as persons are responsible for our own actions and sins NO church will be standing beside you when you meet your maker, YOU will have to justify your actions to God when he passes judgement of your actions, as he KNOWS what is in our hearts. Allow God to be your guide, give him your WILL and he will show you the way. BUT we do need those teachers.
+Dave Hill The Anglican Church (formerly called the Church of England) hasn't been an established church here, in the British sense, at least since 1900.
Here is section 116 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, legally effective from the stroke of midnight on 31 December, 1900:
116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
Of course, the States which constitute the Commonwealth each have their own constitutions and could establish a state church, but this hasn't happened and isn't likely to. Attempts to amend the Commonwealth constitution to extend the prohibition to the States have failed twice, mostly because the amendments were bundled with other proposals which were rejected.
The entanglement of state and church is pervasive and, just when you think it's settled, another aspect arises. Religious oaths are provided for in courts (as well as secular affirmations). Members of Parliament may take a religious oath (or affirm) when sworn into Parliament. The Paternoster is recited by the presiding officers in the House and Senate when the proceedings commence. (If you're a Buddhist or whatever, tough luck; stay outside until it's done.) The federal funding of private sector schools (mostly denominational) is a cause for disputation at every election (mostly as politicians compete to throw money at them to buy votes and accuse each other of neglecting them).
There's an ongoing battle over the 'right' of these private schools to exclude homosexual teachers and students.
The litigation of an Australian counterpart of Masterpiece Cakes is yet to arise but it probably will. The religious right is lashing back after being told last year to sit down and shut up over same-sex marriage. The current Prime Minister is a Pentecostalist and is under suspicion of giving them aid and succour.
In other words, familiar territory to an American.
+Travis Bird Yeah, lots of similarities there. We managed (with the 14th amendment to our federal constitution, after the Civil War) to blanket push all federal rights out to the state level (thus a state cannot establish a church[1], a state cannot improperly restrict gun rights, a state must adhere to equal protection under the law, etc.), but the other conflict you mention all happen to greater or lesser extent here. Sadly enough.
As a member of the zany branch of the Anglicans here in the States, the Episcopalians, we're usually on the outs with the conservative Christianists here that want to de facto make their own nebulous brand of Christianity established.
—[1] This actually was a conflict in the early days of the US, as I recall, though most of the states states had given up their own established churches by then.
+Dave Hill A further development:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-22/sydney-anglican-church-property-smoking-backdown/10403548?pfmredir=sm&user_id=0bd540db4b5cb23c6c04132b29e82fdd846dc9bd763ff314d07f88263e871a73