Laws allowing discrimination against homosexuals are good

DISCLAIMER: This article is not intended for publication in New South Wales. I do not give permission for anyone in New South Wales to read this article, print it, post it to themselves, talk about it or place it on their Facebook page. I do not even give you permission to bookmark it or think about what its contents may contain.

If you live in New South Wales and want to read this article, you must first travel outside of New South Wales. Even if you do this, I do not give you permission to take it or any of the ideas expressed in it back into New South Wales.

If you read this article in New South Wales without my permission, you do so at your own peril.


This is a map highlighting where New South Wales is.

And this is a map highlighting where the last two people referred to the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal for homosexual vilification live and work and breathe and do things.

Those of you who can read a map will immediately notice that neither of these people actually live inside New South Wales.

So watch out Australia, the New South Wales ‘Thought Police’ have crossed the borders and are coming after you. If you put it on Facebook, Tweet it, talk to your local newspaper or just go off on a rant somewhere in the bush, be warned that your actions can and will be scrutinised.

And if you say something that a homosexual activist doesn’t like, you’ll wind up with a letter or email from the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board whinging about how you should get yourself a New South Wales postal address to make their life easier.

Take it from me.

I’ve got one of these letters. Actually, I’ve got seven of them.

I’m the little red dot in Queensland.

And the other little red dot in Victoria represents Tess Corbett.

She committed the heinous crime of suggesting that anti-discrimination laws will one day give paedophiles the same protections as homosexuals. And the same activist who lodged the complaint against her for that statement has lodged a complaint against me for offering the opinion that homosexuals who expose themselves to children at ‘Gay Pride’ events are perverted.

So Tess Corbett might be right, but these days being right is against the law. It’s not much consolation.

Tess was also found guilty for stating that she supported laws that allow Christian organisations to discriminate against homosexuals.

Now you might not know this, but Christian organisations can decide not to employ homosexuals. Because they are homosexual.

It is not illegal for a Christian school to say that it does not want homosexual teachers in its employ. In fact, it is perfectly lawful for a school principal to say exactly that.

This is because every state government as well as the Commonwealth recognises that just because you are homosexual, you do not have the unfettered right to force your view of the world on others. Not that anyone who listens to the constant stream of pro-gay news in the media would know that.

But I think we should make a point of emphasising this. And celebrate it (while we can). Right now, today, Christian organisations can lawfully discriminate against homosexuals. This is a good thing.

Of course, because Christians are interested in doing useful things like building schools and educating children, there are such things as Christian schools. Now, I don’t know of any homosexual schools. I’m guessing that’s because the homosexual world is more interested in themselves and their ‘rights’ rather than doing things for the betterment of others.

But if the gay community ever got together and built a gay school, I would have no problem in being told that they did not want to employ Christian teachers. I’m not sure any truly Christian teachers would want the job anyway, and I certainly would fear for the moral development of children in such a school. But I don’t know any Christians who would argue that they have a ‘right’ to come into that school and ‘force’ their view on others.

I don’t know why this should not also be the case for the LGBT community.

But homosexual activists think that they do have the ‘right’ to come into Christian schools and ‘force’ them to accept their views of the world.

And that is exactly why a nano-second after the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal found that Tess Corbett was not allowed to appeal against the decision that she had vilified homosexuals by stating her support for extant laws, a homosexual activist put a press release out with these words:

“…the ruling would go down in case law and prevent politicians from appealing to the Bible to justify vilification. In a written submission last year, a lawyer for Ms Corbett had attempted to use the Bible as supporting evidence. 

“Today’s decision will set a precedent for future cases that not only is vilifying homosexuals illegal, but you can’t use the Bible or religion as a valid legal defence…”

This activist wants to force Christians into a world where they cannot express their moral views. And this ruling has now made it more difficult for them to do so.

It also means we have arrived at the utterly absurd position where it is lawful to discriminate against homosexuals but it is not lawful to state that you support this law.

And in New South Wales, this means that the same law that allows discrimination against homosexuals is the same law that says you can’t say that you support this idea. It is now a breach of section 49ZT of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 to state that you support section 49ZH (3) (c) of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.

For those who don’t know, there is actually a reason why Christian schools would not want to employ homosexuals. A very good reason.

For instance, the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are gravely depraved and not to be approved under any circumstances. It even teaches that the inclination to homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. This does not mean that it hates homosexuals. On the contrary, it wants them to go Heaven and it knows that the road there is blocked for those who do not repent of homosexual behaviour. Hiding this fact might ‘seem’ nice, but it is not loving.

I happen to be Catholic which also means that I accept the Church’s teaching.

And, like any other sane parent that I know, I do not want someone who is intrinsically disordered and engaged in acts of grave depravity to have any influence over the character formation of my children. I want my children to go to Heaven and not end up in the other place.

That means it is perfectly logical that I do not want homosexual teachers at my children’s Catholic school.

And today I can get my way. I just can’t state why I support this situation anymore. Unfortunately, that means the homosexual brigade have pretty much won the battlefield and tomorrow things will probably change.

If it is illegal to state that you support discrimination against homosexuals and if it is vilification to outline the reasons why, then it is only a matter of time before the law changes to force Christian schools to hire homosexual teachers.

And the Civil and Administrative Tribunal has just found that Tess Corbett can’t even appeal the decision that she vilified homosexuals for expressing her beliefs in support of the current law.

So prepare yourself for an onslaught against the current laws and your right to raise your children to follow Christian principles.



Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of nine children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On


  1. We’ve seen what happens in Catholic seminaries once the homosexual (lavender) mafia take control – the good guys get excluded and the sodomite mafia consistently promote their own. Unfortunately a similar scenario seems to be playing out in Catholic education and Catholic healthcare – where the lavender mafia quickly destroy any Catholic culture which previously existed. Once the Catholic Church bends over to the sodomite brigade, it soon becomes impossible to discriminate against other criminals e.g. abortionists.

    Post a Reply
    • The only sure and certain way, in 2014, of getting rid of the lavender mafiosi from “Catholic” seminaries is to defund those seminaries. Starve the beasts. And that means (among other things) refusing to put money in the collection plate on Sunday unless the priests can guarantee – not vaguely promise, but guarantee – that sodomites won’t be getting that money. How many more Ridsdales, Foxes, and Pickerings are we meant to put up with?

      Post a Reply
  2. For a bit of fun my work has a Red Faces competition where we perform serious or silly skits and songs. Being the last of the non-PC crowd I decided to do a medley of songs. The first was the Flintstones theme, last line “we’ll have a gay old time” but rather than using the G word I let out a little scream as though it had just occurred to me. I apologized profusely and said my next song would be My Old Kentucky Home… “tis Summer, the darkies are gay”. 2 little screams for the D word and the G word. After more apologies I announced an old Charlie Drake song “My boomerang won’t come back’, little scream. I asked the audience to nominate a song I could sing without offending anyone. Needless to say the next day my line manager called me in for a little chat. As were my colleagues who suggested “Black Betty”, “Fat bottomed girls” and “Lola”. Do you remember when workplaces could be fun?

    Post a Reply
    • Have you sat through a Ricky Gervais bit where he bags out Christians? I used to like him until his attention was directed at me personally. Then I realised that his type of humour is other centred. It’s about picking on people who have different characteristics that you. It’s very school boyish. It is ridicule – boosting the self, degrading the other.

      I much prefer humour which laughs at yourself, so I’m a big fan of Jim Gaffigan, who is a Catholic man that can laugh at himself and his life.

      Maybe the reason why you got pulled aside was because a lot of your humour was laughing at others, not yourself. Can you think of a song that does that?

      Post a Reply
  3. Hey Bernard, thanks for being honest in your post. It’s certainly a touchy topic and I think direct honesty helps make debate easer. I have a question if you could answer.
    You write: ”The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are gravely depraved and not to be approved under any circumstances. It even teaches that the inclination to homosexuality is intrinsically disordered … I do not want someone who is intrinsically disordered and engaged in acts of grave depravity to have any influence over the character formation of my children.”

    As a mother myself, I can certainly relate to your desire to limit depraved influence on your children. However, I am interested to know why you think even homosexual inclination is intrinsically disordered.
    I am not trying to change your view, but I wonder to what extent you would be willing to stand by these words.

    For example, let’s say we had a young teacher who believed homosexuality was wrong but still felt these inclinations himself but chose not to act on them. Is he intrinsically disordered? Would it change the context if he were Christian?


    Post a Reply
    • To answer your question further. A young man who has these feeling but recognises that they are disordered is to be supported and encouraged. I imagine it would a tough battle and that those engaged in it are truly courageous – much more so than the rest of us in many ways. And there are many examples of such men overcoming this disorder and going on to live very happy lives and raising families of their own. There is still a question of appropriate roles for them during this battle. For instance, the Vatican has stated that men with this disorder should not be admitted to the seminary (this sound advice was ignored for much of the last century with devastating results to the Church and those in its care). Schooling is much different than the seminary, but I question whether it would be appropriate for a man struggling with this internal problem to be placed in a position of care over children who are very easily influenced. Finally, in a practical sense, this is not an issue that occurs that often. Most people who struggle against this disorder do so privately and with the support of close confidants. Most people would never know the battle. But we are dealing with something much different for the most part – teachers who openly and brazenly support this disorder in others, or proudly claim that they should be praised for it within themselves.

      Post a Reply
      • Bernard,
        While I agree with you about the craziness of the discrimination law, this is where you lost me:

        ” I do not want someone who is intrinsically disordered…”

        because it seems you have now taken what is stated in the Catechism too far. It is the attraction that is intrinsically disordered, not the person. To say that the person is intrinsically disordered is misstating the Catechism. Even though you try to make the distinction in other places in the article; when the tyre hits the road, as in this specific declaration, it appears that the concept disappears.

        I think the word “disordered” is also a dangerous word to bandy around without clarification, especially when it is then misused in this way. It is in fact a source of a lot of misunderstanding between people who support the gay position and those who support the Catholic position. While a Catholic might see that it simply means that the homosexual act is inherently not directed or ordered toward procreation, the gay person might understand that it means that they are a defective human being.

        The other thing that I find interesting in your article is that you position one against the other – Catholic School versus Gay School. But the two aren’t mutually exclusive. There are gay Catholics. They are people who live with these inclinations and try to follow Christ like the rest of us. I read a few blogs by gay Catholics and its quite interesting to get their perspective. Some feel that they don’t need to “get over” their inclinations, but simply live with it as anyone with another type of temptation would live with them. Your reply post above seems to advocate for reparative therapy which some gay Catholics believe is very damaging for the individual. I’m no expert so I will defer to them for their inside knowledge. I just think it’s important to point out that while some gay Catholics have gone through reparative therapy, others haven’t and also live in a married or single situation, trying to follow Christ.

      • Gary, the Catholic Church teaches authoritatively that even the mere inclination to engage in homosexual acts constitutes an objective disorder. Here is the direct quote from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (letter to Bishops on the pastoral care of homosexual persons)….
        “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”

        In other words normal people don’t have any inclination to engage in unnatural and disgraceful acts with members of the same sex. Anyone who has this inclination has an “objective disorder”. Obviously once they have engaged in sodomy, they are beyond the realms of mere medical/psychiatric assistance, and must engage a Catholic Priest in the Sacrament of Penance – since sodomy, like murder, is one of the mortal sins which cry to heaven for vengeance.

      • The quote you reference supports my point. It talks about the attraction, just as I talk about the attraction. Bernard stated in that quote that it was the person who was disordered. There is a significant difference between the two. If someone wanted reparative therapy, that’s fine. But I don’t think you can say that they must have it, especially when some gay Catholics are able to get along just fine without it. Just like I am able to live with a residual attraction to females, it seems that some gay people are able to live with a residual attraction to the same sex while loving a concrete person of the opposite sex in a marriage. I wouldn’t say to a recovered alcoholic that they will never be a normal person until they can get rid of their disordered attraction to alcohol.

        And I don’t understand what you mean by normal people anyway. Are heterosexual people safe, even if they have temptations to masturbate, watch pornography, have oral sex or commit sodomy with their wife? The people we call the greatest saints were too well aware that they are sinners too. The Church is a hospital, helping us to continue the journey ever deeper toward Christ. But we are all patients.

      • Gary,
        You may benefit from reading the Catholic Medical Association’s “Homosexuality and Hope”, compiled by international experts in the field, who make it very clear that same-sex attraction disorder (SSAD) is a preventable, treatable and curable problem….

      • Sure, I’ll have a look at it. But I don’t know how I could possibly benefit from it.

      • Perhaps by gently informing sodomites and other homosexually-disordered persons that their condition is both preventable and curable – by giving them a copy of “Homosexuality and Hope” – you could help in some small way to eradicate this unfortunate problem from our society. It is a lofty goal, I know, but even a thousand mile journey begins with the first step.

      • Rory, have you used that information in a similar way? If so, what was the outcome for the person you talked to?

      • Gary,
        I have promoted the booklet “Homosexuality and Hope” on several occasions – not merely handing out the booklet but also endorsing the contents. Most recently I made supportive references to this booklet and its contents during a talk to a Catholic medical guild in Brisbane – and was almost immediately challenged publicly – including by a member of the Knights of Malta who refused to accept the Catholic teaching that “although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” Are you suggesting that when the message is not well-received by an ignorant/poorly-educated audience, we should refrain from spreading Catholic Truth???

      • I’m not suggesting anything about the truth of Catholic documents, I was just asking if you had yourself “gently informed sodomites and other homosexually disordered persons that their condition is both preventable and curable” and what their reaction was. I ask because I am a follower of Christ. It seems that when he was talking to the Pharisees he had a lot to criticise, because they were the people telling others what they should be doing, making their lives harder without doing anything to help carry their burdens. When Peter tried to stop him from going down his own path he had the most severe words of rebuke for him, calling him Satan. But whenever he interacted with sinful people he had a lot of patience and compassion and responded to their faith in him. He did not rebuke them. They were attracted to the good in him. Now I want to be the light of Christ and want to do what he did. If I do what you tell me to do I want to know if the homosexual person I am speaking to is going to be attracted to Christ in me or not. So if you have had success in leading a homosexual to Christ then it would bode well for what you are doing.

      • Gary,
        Perhaps you could research what some ex-gays have to say about their conversion story and the subsequent hostility from the homosexual activist crowd. Here’s one such story…
        More information to help you to counter the sick, homosexual propaganda from the always excellent “Christian Order”…

      • Okay, so I’ll take it then that you haven’t been able to bring a homosexual person closer to Christ by gently informing them of their condition. For my part, I think I have quite a good grasp of Christianity. I have researched the issue of homosexuality quite a bit. But I really don’t see why you are asking me again to do more research.

        The position I hold was quite well put by Peter Kreeft when he was asked whether there can be such a thing as a liberal Catholic. He stated that if you are talking about love, then Catholics have to be more liberal than anybody else, as Jesus asks us even to love our enemies. Can we be a conservative in love? No.

        If you are talking about truth, then we cannot be liberal because we must search for and hold fast to the truth. Can we be a liberal with the truth? No.

        But the two can co-exist, for truth belongs to the mind, and love belongs to the heart, and goodness belongs to the will, which determines how we are to use the truth to act in love. And that is the problem that I see with your position. It is fine to know what the truth is, but if you use the truth to attack people, you aren’t acting in love. It doesn’t seem to be a position Jesus would take, because he always acted in truth and love.

      • Gary,
        The point is that we should be loving enough to truthfully tell the sodomite that his disorder can be cured – and that he can be forgiven in the Sacrament of Penance. We should also be loving enough to our children to keep them well clear of the negative influence of these perverse weirdos until they are completely cured, and equally loving towards our Holy Mother Church by preventing these sodomite sickos from taking complete control of our Catholic seminaries, schools and hospitals.

      • Surely now you are playing with me. Did you write that with a smile on your face?

        I have never seen the word love juxtaposed so expertly with terms of derision.

  4. Bernard,
    A major problem we face is that our Catholic Bishops and even Cardinals have consistently FAILED to discriminate against homosexuals – from the College of Cardinals, College of Bishops to the seminaries, Catholic schools, Catholic healthcare etc etc. even when such discrimination is required by Church law. In 2005 Pope Benedict re-iterated that the Church “cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture'”, and yet his mandate was widely ignored – much like the previous 1962 instruction along the same lines. What’s the result of this massive institutional failure to discriminate against homosexuals in the Priesthood? Literally thousands of boys across the globe have been buggerised by Priests, Bishops and Cardinals, and the resulting lawsuits have virtually crippled the Church.

    Post a Reply
    • Its a sad fact that these things occurred, and I think they possibly occurred out of misplaced Christian charity. However, we must always draw the line where the church places it, not in some other place we think wiser, kinder or more accommodating.

      Post a Reply
      • By officially excluding homosexuals from the Priesthood, the Catholic Church quite correctly demonstrates that discriminating on the basis of sexual disorientation is a just form of discrimination. Let’s not forget that on matters of Faith and Morals the Catholic Church is infallible – the NSW Court is NOT! Hence, whenever there is a discrepancy, the Catholic Church trumps the NSW Court each and every time – regardless of whatever some corrupt freemasonic judiciary may imagine to the contrary.

  5. Hi Bernard,
    one thing I am interested in is how organised our denominational leaders are getting in preparation for when persecution against Christians who disagree with LGBTI goes to the next level ie, the laws change and christians are required by law to allow homosexual teachers in christian schools and become members of congregations etc I would hope our denominational leaders are preparing for that possible day and we will see nation wide protests, and prayer rallys (imagine 10,000 christians descending on parliament house one weekend or even for one whole week) and other co-ordinated actions. What we are doing now (prayer, writing letters, supporting brave voices like yourself) is a good start, but what is the next level of co-ordinated action I wonder, and are our church leaders considering it? I cant help but think of the incredible change Ghandhi was able to bring about in India through nonviolent civil disobedience and the turnarounds that occured as the result of coordinated public prayer as described in the Transformations videos in some major cities around the world (websearch transformations christian video series)

    Post a Reply
    • Just imagine, a crowd of 10000 Christians, arms interlocked, surrounding parliament house in silent prayer until the law was changed….however long it takes!

      Post a Reply


  1. Orlando | Neil's Commonplace Book - […] homosexual community views children as commodities to be traded around the planet. More recently, he argued that “laws allowing…
  2. Anti-Islam, but pro-gay? How mosque opponents tie themselves in knots – Connor Tomas O'Brien - [...] Francis, founder of the “counter feminism” Endeavour Forum, and Bernard Gaynor, who recently published an article on his websitetitled “Laws…
  3. Anti-Islam, but pro-gay? How mosque opponents tie themselves in knots | Connor Tomas O'Brien | Anti-Islam, but pro-gay? How mosque opponents tie themselves in knots | Connor Tomas O'Brien | Social Dashboard - [...] founder of the “counter feminism” Endeavour Forum, and Bernard Gaynor, who recently published an article on his website titled…

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest