Michael Koziol-Article Analysis

There have been many cases over the years regarding people objecting to things based on their religious beliefs. By doing so, these people are sometimes in violation of federal or state laws that protect people’s rights and prevent discrimination. An example of this is when Bob Smith refused to rent out his banquet hall to Adam and Steve, a gay couple who wanted to get married there. Bob, a California resident, refused to rent out the banquet hall because Adam and Steve’s gay wedding went against his religious beliefs and he found their lifestyle to be immoral and ungodly. This case brings up several legal, moral and philosophical issues that will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

Equity and respect for others are two of the main values that are instantly presented to the audience. Wong makes it clear that they are two beliefs of hers that are not displayed frequently enough in Parliament, as if same sex couples were in a world where they were treated with a sense of egalitarianism and respect, then gay marriage would be unquestionably legalized. Improvement is also a prominent theme displayed by the author, who utilizes quotes such as ‘marriage equality is both necessary and overdue’ (Wong, 2016) and ‘gay and lesbian Australians can vote, serve in the military, represent our country on the sporting field, teach in our universities, preside as judges, staff our hospitals, and be a member of the federal cabinet. Yet we cannot marry the person we love’. (Wong, 2016) These two quotations are clear demonstrations of the author’s conviction that Australia can be undoubtedly improved with the introduction of new laws that allow citizens of all sexualities to

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender

ary: This article discusses the death of Antonin Scalia. Not only is the appointment process discussed, but a potential nominee that may be a good appointment.

In the reading by John P. Kotter he wrote an article that said managers and leaders are they different? What caught my attention about this reading is when I was reading open secret papers, things I seen said to me that as clergy we need to be both managers and leaders, why? Because as clergy we must promote stability, and press for change how so? We preach the word of God so our congregants are stable, and we press for change in our church for whatever is not working. Can I press this a little more for example when a ministry is not pulling its weight we have to press for change some time that leader of that particular ministry, As clergy we have to move in this aspect of leadership and this make for good pastoring as an art.

While there have been many successes for promoting and enacting laws to help support gay and lesbian rights there still much more to be done to ensure such. In reading the Saylor text the first thing discuses is the “unique obstacle” in helping attain civil rights (Saylor 179). Civil rights for gay men and lesbians, is something that has been greatly opposed by religious groups where it sex marriage and in all homosexuality is deemed “flawed behavior” and not an “innate characteristic” (179). In regards to exit polls it is also regarded that only 4 percent of public voting is made have up so lesbian, gay men, and bisexuals. Other opposition for gay rights came in the 1950s with the anti-communist scare where gay people where “harassed” and mocked by politicians and police departments. Latter opposition that is extremely current today would be same sex marriage, which has brought in huge opposition between the federal and state courts. In all, while there have been many accomplishments in gay rights there is still more that must be accomplished regarding equal rights for

LGBT rights in religion haven't been the best, multiple Christians and catholic are against the idea of gay marriage. It is deemed in the Christian/Catholic church that if an LGBT person commits any type of gay or lesbian act, they are committing a sin. Even though that there are millions of churches that don’t approve of these acts, there are some churches that embrace LGBT rights thanks to advocacy groups. The religions that mostly accept LGBT people are Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, and Catholic/Christians. While the religious groups that don’t fully support LGBT people are Evangelicals, Mormons, and Jehovah’s

Recently, the Safe Schools Coalition, a program funded by the federal government to promote the acceptance of LGBTI children, has been questioned by politicians and some members of the community on the appropriateness of the program. Consequently, the issue of whether or not the Safe Schools Coalition should be supported has arisen, and is discussed in the opinion piece “Safe Schools Coalition – what is the Christian Right afraid of?” published on the 26th of February 2016 in The Conversation (Australia). The editor, Timothy W Jones, supports the Safe Schools Coalition program, and uses rational and critical tones to outline to parents how conservatives are misleading when attacking the Safe Schools Coalition.

A great amount of problems still exist in LGBT workplaces, rights in the sphere have evolved and there are signs for a better and brighter future for the community. “The government has announced that it will be advancing legislation to amend section 37.1 of the employment equality act, which currently allows religious—run institutions, such as schools and hospitals to discriminate against LGBT employees. But the amendment will not protect every worker, as Rob Buchanan reports.” (BUCHANAN)

In the 65-year history of LGBTQ activism in the United States, the present moment stands out on the basis of gay marriage being legalized. At no other time would an observer have imagined that the LGBTQ movement was likely to succeed in such a manner that any gender can marry any other gender with the permission by the law (Stewart-winter

This essay will be critically analyzing the social policy of same sex marriage using four Australian newspaper articles to demonstrate and examine how inequality through diversity and difference are present and experienced in the public domain. The essay will draw upon What ideological values and assumptions are present in both the newspaper articles and social policy?, What are the social justice concerns in relation to the current same sex policy?, concluding with a reflective component exploring where in relation to the social policy issue I am as a developing social worker.

Within Krisofs article he directly states his thesis that “The problem is not only abusers but more broadly a society that often disbelieves or scorns those crying for help,” personally I agree with this statement. I definitely approve of this outlook because I saw this “disbelief” growing up in a technology and social media concentrated age. For instance, if someone posts something about them being upset that person is usually “scorned” and doesn't receive much help from society. They are displayed as whiny and weak by society, but maybe society instead should listen and offer help. This example may not be the same as a sexual assault outcry, but they both display people's likelihood to disbelieve the weak. Through Kristof's article he is able to use a number of rhetorical strategies in order to reinforce Dylan Farrow position, within doing so he

In Journal of Human Rights published in 2014, after the Equalities Act of 2010 enacted, the United Kingdom sees sexuality and gender identities as “protected characteristics,” with legal imperatives to address discrimination, and in Canada in the early 1990s, there were an opposition against gays and lesbian rights, but after sexual orientation recognized in 1995, gradually by 2013, gays and lesbians have equality rights. (Browne, 2014)

For centuries, same sex couples have been scrutinised and marginalised based on their sexual orientation, however, over recent decades, movements established by same sex couples have enticed the Australian Government to equate specific rights and privileges between homo- and heterosexual couples. Although, the progress this movement has maintained has been stagnated by the influential Christian portion of Australia, whom of which strongly oppose the concept of homosexuality. Regardless of the superior social status they now withhold, same sex couples are still confronted with numerous socio-economic and cultural injustices within society, manifested through the immoral beliefs of homophobic citizens and religious characters.

Crying foul about need to protect religious freedom, opponents of same-sex-marriage should be careful what they wish for. Erecting it as a bulwark to change, they illuminate a common misunderstanding of what the term means, highlighting how it has become a proxy for religious privilege - a means of favouring certain subset of faith-based beliefs.