It comes as no surprise that an Anglican bishop is at the forefront of those who are appalled by the law.
A SENIOR Anglican bishop calls it “appalling” and a gay and lesbian rights group condemns it as “deeply offensive”, but the Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, backs a NSW law that allows private schools to expel gay students simply for being gay.
Through a spokesman, Mr Hatzistergos, described the 30-year-old law as necessary “to maintain a sometimes delicate balance between protecting individuals from unlawful discrimination while allowing people to practise their own beliefs”.
Even though the very existence of the law is enough to give Anglican bishops an attack of the vapours, in practice it seems unlikely that the law would be administered in a draconian way:
Brigadier Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby has no qualms about the law. The head of the influential Christian pressure group said a church school should have the right to expel any openly gay child.
“But I would expect any church that found itself in that situation to do that in the most loving way that it could for the child and to reduce absolutely any negative affects.
“I think that you explain: this is a Christian school, that unless the child is prepared to accept that it is chaste, that it is searching for alternatives as well, that the school may decide that it might be better for the child as well that he goes somewhere else. I think it’s a loving response.”
In such a case, why should a Christian school not have the authority to expel the student? Why would the student want to attend the school in the first place?
Pingback: Australia has a law that allows private schools to expel … | Gila Mountain Christian Academy | Top Rated Private School in Yuma Arizona (AZ)
I failed at the interesting exercise in English comprehension of attempting to deduce the antecedents of each of the four uses of “it” in the Christian Lobby response:
Exactly what is “chaste” and “searching for alternatives”? The school? Since the child is “he” later, I presume that the subject of those clauses is not the child. But then, the next clause has the school clearly as the subject. The middle of this sentence surely was intended to mean something. But what?
This appears to be the level of bafflegab usually seen from the more permissive groups.
Nope, just very bad grammar.