We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.

I don’t like the way that religious leaders are given a special exemption for this statement of non-discrimination. I think it would instead be better to phrase it in a way that said no discrimination based on qualities that are either entirely inconsequential to the task being performed, or for which accommodations cannot be made for practical and non-discriminatory reasons.

So, a non-religious person who does not subscribe to a particular faith and whom is unable or unwilling to fain belief and worship in order to fulfill the duties of the role, would likely not qualify for the position of a religious leader, at least not in favour of someone who is of the faith. So such a person is not being discriminated against purely because of their lack of faith, but because they would not meet the requirements of the position itself.

Similarly, a wheelchair bound disabled person cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their disability, but they would not likely be suitable for the position that required them to have full use of their legs, such as, for example, working on a construction site where they would need to climb up and down ladders all day, unless there is a way for them to workaround their disability and still perform the required tasks.

We oppose state funding for faith schools.

I agree that funding given to a faith school for purposes inessential to the basic educational needs of students should certainly not come from the state. Such schools should absolutely not receive more funding than state schools.

However, there is an argument to be made for limited funding on a per student basis that is sufficient to subsidise the cost of certain essential services and facilities, with a requirement that such state funding must be used as specified. For example, funding to subsidise, if not cover completely, the cost of text books required by the state.

This is justifiable because it is highly likely that the student’s parents are tax payers, just like every other employed person, and it is tax payer money that goes towards the state’s education budget. So their choice to send their child to a faith school should not impose undue restrictions upon their child’s educational needs, with respect to benefiting from the state’s educational budget.

“ But yet you say its ok for them to publicly speak but not Christians. “

Can you point me to where it says that, I can not find it.

“The Holy Bible is prophetic and proven.”

Really? Where and how so. No one has proven it to me, or even given me the first shred of evidence that any of it is a true story, and not just well written moral fiction.