Freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination on grounds such as sexual identity are both widely-accepted principles in Australian law and society. Sometimes however it seems that freedom from discrimination cannot be taken for granted in, or even just near, a church. Just days ago a case in point with a history stretching back some years may have reached its conclusion.
In April the Victorian Court of Appeal upheld earlier rulings of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, to the effect that a Phillip Island camp run by Christian Youth Camps Ltd, affiliated with the Christian Brethren, had discriminated illegally against same-sex attracted persons by refusing a booking from Cobaw Community Health Service for a weekend event for young gay and lesbian people.
Judges in both proceedings acknowledged readily that the refusal to grant the booking was discriminatory. The courts also found — by a majority, in the appeal — that exemptions provided in the Equal Opportunity Act to allow for religious freedom did not apply to the case. Some of the reasons are interesting and important for Christians and members of other faith communities, regardless of their attitudes to same-sex relationships.
The judgements suggest that corporations with religious roots cannot expect to apply to themselves the same sorts of exemptions that are intended to defend the beliefs and consciences of individuals.
Justice Marcia Neave, in her separate judgement supporting the rejection of the CYC appeal, went so far as to suggest that the provisions of the Equal Opportunity Act regarding religious freedom for persons (s.77) could not be applied to corporations at all, which leaves room for some interesting reflection on how religious bodies that seek incorporation, as some churches have done and are doing, manage their understandings of exemption.
Where 'religion' and its exercise by individuals is unquestionably at issue, there have still been different understandings about how it could or should be allowed as a basis for discrimination.
At the VCAT hearings, witnesses for CYC maintained that the refusal of the booking was necessary for them to conform with their doctrine of 'plenary inspiration', and hence what the Bible was understood by them to teach about homosexuality. They maintained, and more so in the course of the appeal, that the refusal of the booking was necessary for them to comply with their genuine religious belief and principles about homosexuality.
The judgements did not dismiss the possibility that such beliefs could be held in conscience,