Judge sides with Catholic agency, rules ‘polyamory’ is not a protected orientation

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

_Abyssinia

Guest
Siding with a Catholic agency, an Australian judge has ruled that “polyamory,” or having multiple partners, is a behavior rather than a protected orientation under Australian anti-discrimination law.
Click to expand...
Centacare Catholic Family and Community Services in Brisbane fired Susan Bunning, its clinical practice coordinator, after her support for an organization promoting polyamory became known.
Click to expand...
“The Applicant claims that she was dismissed because she was polyamorous and that a dismissal for that reason is unlawful,” Judge Salvatore Vasta noted.
Click to expand...
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=24158
 
SpeakInSilence said:
I’m confused how they decide this.
Click to expand...
By using common sense. The desire to have multiple sexual partners is a behavioral one, not a matter of orientation or anything else. It doesn’t make sense to provide special protections for what essentially amounts to a fetish.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
By using common sense. The desire to have multiple sexual partners is a behavioral one, not a matter of orientation or anything else. It doesn’t make sense to provide special protections for what essentially amounts to a fetish.
Click to expand...
Going to mass and confession is also a ‘behavioural’ issue, but firing someone for going to church would surely count as discrimination against religion. (The desire itself is not of course behaviour, but I think I get what you meant)

Why is this not simply a question of saying that there is no law establishing polyamory as a protected class? Is there some ambiguously phrased law or constitutional clause that might arguably have covered polyamory?
 
If polyamory were to be made legal could one then sue for benefits for all of one’s paramours. You see where this is leading?:(:confused::o
 
DrTaffy said:
Going to mass and confession is also a ‘behavioural’ issue, but firing someone for going to church would surely count as discrimination against religion. (The desire itself is not of course behaviour, but I think I get what you meant)

Why is this not simply a question of saying that there is no law establishing polyamory as a protected class? Is there some ambiguously phrased law or constitutional clause that might arguably have covered polyamory?
Click to expand...
The issue isn’t whether or not polyamory is a protected class, but rather if the employer has the right to fire the person in question for their promotion of polyamory. In a standard business setting I would agree that it would not be prudent to fire someone for being polyamorous, however, this is not a standard business setting. This woman was working for a Catholic agency, founded and guided by Catholic principles. It is not illogical to think that they would expect their employees to adhere to Catholic teaching, nor is it unconstitutional or wrong to dismiss someone who is actively promoting things opposed to their ideals and goals.

If I were to go to work for an organization specifically founded to promote some aspect of atheistic ideology, I wouldn’t be surprised when they fired me for being a church going Catholic.
 
TARRAT said:
If polyamory were to be made legal could one then sue for benefits for all of one’s paramours. You see where this is leading?:(:confused::o
Click to expand...
As always, follow the money.

Not to worry, this will be the next wave once gay unions get acceptance.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
By using common sense. The desire to have multiple sexual partners is a behavioral one, not a matter of orientation or anything else. It doesn’t make sense to provide special protections for what essentially amounts to a fetish.
Click to expand...
Have you considered that homosexuality might be a fetish also?
 
unstoppable_II said:
Have you considered that homosexuality might be a fetish also?
Click to expand...
It’s not a fetish in the strict sense of the word; but I do not think there is anything natural about, or that it bears protecting. I also certainly don’t think it should be promoted as a viable 'lifestyle" either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top