Homosexuality Trumps Christianity

On June 7, 2007, the telephone rang in the office of Mark Rowe, the manager of the Phillip Island Adventure Resort. Ms Sue Hackney, who runs the Way Out project for Cobaw Community Health Services, wanted to make a booking for sixty homosexual young people and twelve workers. As she explained it later:

I said that we aimed to raise awareness about the needs of these young people and then the nature and effect of homophobia in rural communities and the effect of discrimination on young people … I said that I’d be honest that our project believed that same sex attraction or homosexuality was a normal and natural part of the range of human sexualities, and that what we’d be doing over the weekend was having workshops and discussions to plan ways to raise awareness.

The Adventure Resort was run by the Christian Brethren, who did not see homosexuality in the same light, and Mark Rowe told her it might be better if they booked in somewhere else and he suggested Koala Park. Mr Rowe in a later recollection of the conversation said, “I understood that her group was about promoting a homosexual lifestyle as both a natural and healthy choice for young people … I understood Sue was referring to children thirteen years and above.” He said that he told her he did not believe that Way Out Youth was compatible with the aims and purposes of Christian Youth Camps, but that he thought she was respectful of his views and would seek another venue.[1] No recording was made of what both parties conceded was a polite conversation. Ms Hackney said Mark Rowe had refused to take her booking; he said he hadn’t, and that the conversation never got beyond a preliminary inquiry. Just over a fortnight later Ms Hackney send a letter to him giving her version of the conversation. When she got no reply, she sought legal advice and the views of “the partner organisations”.[2] Cobaw then initiated legal action, alleging discrimination against twelve named persons and citing various sections of the Equal Opportunity Act.[3]

What effect did this phone call have on the Way Out young people? At the trial they said they were upset by the necessity to disclose their sexual orientation, the refusal of their booking and the inconvenience of having to find another venue with possible questioning and refusal.[4] Mr Alan Taylor, the CEO of Cobaw, was more positive. He saw the legal action as an exercise in character building, saying his organisation wants its clients to be “resilient and self-advocating”.[5] He said it would have been contrary to this ideology not to take on Christian Youth Camps.[6] Ms K. Eastman for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission added that the Christian Youth Camps had denied the young people the enjoyment of the rights conferred on them by the Victorian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities.[7]

Judge Felicity Hampel, at the Victorian Administrative Appeals Tribunal, said that the phone call had generated variously “upset, anger or hurt”.[8] She dismissed the counter-claim by the Christian Brethren that they had feelings too and could easily be accused of homophobia. She believed that the real motivation for this claim was “to divert attention from the real issues for determination by me”.[9] Comments like this that occur from time to time in her judgment raise questions about her impartiality. It’s one thing to state what she considers to be the effect of a submission, it’s another thing to attribute a motive for it. The hurt to the feelings of the young people did not have to occur at all. Ms Hackney did not need to tell anyone else about the refusal, if indeed it was such, and in any case she experienced no difficulty in booking another site.

In court, Mr Rowe admitted that Ms Hackney had not said that children as young as thirteen would be attending, nor any as young as twelve, which he alleged in a press statement. He said that it was an inference from the fact that teenagers would be attending.[10] Judge Hampel pointed out that, unlike Ms Hackney, Mr Rowe made no record at the time of the telephone conversation,[11] nor did he challenge Ms Hackney’s version in a letter he received from her on June 21.[12] For these reasons she preferred Ms Hackney’s evidence.

In discussing whether Cobaw could legally speak on behalf of the Way Out young people, the judge referred to what she called a power imbalance. She paid tribute to the courage and commitment of the young people in taking legal action, in being willing to have their privacy invaded,[13] and in facing the associated publicity some of which could have been “salacious”.[14] Even if Judge Hampel’s comments are conceded, the decision to take the matter to court was made by Way Out Youth. Much of what the judge said applies equally to the Christian Brethren witnesses, and perhaps much of the sympathy extended by the judge to the young people could have been extended to them.

There is of course a power imbalance here. The Christian Brethren is a very small denomination which has little influence in Australia. The homosexual community is one of the most powerful and influential communities in the country. Many of their concerns have already been incorporated in legislation, with the likelihood that there will be more to come. They have many supporters in the legal and academic community, some of whom are opposed to Christianity and have no sympathy for and little understanding of its beliefs. As well, the Way Out young people had the support of the considerable resources of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

Mr Rowe said his objection was not to the homosexuality of the young people, but to the promotion of homosexuality among impressionable young people as “natural and healthy”.[15] It was a choice and no one should make it because it was abnormal. He said “living openly as a homosexual, being in a homosexual relationship or engaging in same sex activity” were sins.[16] He opposed the philosophy of groups like Way Out, as young people might be persuaded to think they were homosexual when they were not.[17] Judge Hampel’s reaction to this seems confused. She said,

There is no evidence which provides any support for a suggestion Ms Hackney’s words had implied that the purpose of the forum was to promote homosexuality or a homosexual lifestyle in the sense that Mr Rowe used those terms. Mr Rowe’s acknowledgement that Ms Hackney had used the words natural, healthy and normal in the context of describing same sex attraction as part of the range of normal and healthy human sexualities makes that clear.[18]

She is right that the prime purpose of the time away was not to promote homosexuality, but, as she herself makes clear, this group was formed on the basis that homosexual sex was perfectly normal, and this would of itself tend to confirm these impressionable young people in their behaviour.[19] Ms Hackney said, “What we’d be doing over the weekend was having workshops and discussions to plan ways to raise awareness.”[20]The judge’s view of homosexuality accorded with that of Cobaw. For her homosexuality is an unchangeable part of person’s identity and is “part of the natural and healthy range of human identities”.[21] She also believes that any sort of sexual behaviour is acceptable, that homosexuals and presumably heterosexuals should be able “to express their sexual orientation in the manner they choose”.[22] This latter statement appears to give her judicial imprimatur to such things as group sex, promiscuous sex and unsafe sex.

Homosexual practice is legal but this is not the same thing as saying it is normal, natural and healthy. It does seem to be true that homosexuality has existed in all societies and times, but as exclusive same-sex practice is found only in a small percentage of the population, it cannot be a male norm. When a man and a woman come together they find fulfilment in each other and sometimes bring a new human being into existence. This kind of sex is natural. Anal sex between people of the same sex is not, because the human body is not designed for it. The old laws in many jurisdictions called it “a crime against nature”.

Perhaps the most egregious error made by the judge is her characterisation of homosexuality as healthy. Medical evidence shows homosexual sex is associated with significant health risks. Somewhere between 10 and 18 per cent of the inner-city homosexual population in Sydney are currently infected with HIV, which is an increase on recent years. The danger to health increases with multiple partners and increased frequency of intercourse particularly when safe sexual practices are ignored. The emphasis the homosexual community places on health means they are aware of these facts.

Is homosexuality unchangeable? This seems to depend on whether it is environmentally or genetically determined. There does not appear to be only one factor that predisposes people towards homosexuality. If homosexual behaviour was genetically determined then it would eventually be bred out of the community. There is evidence that it is, at least for some, a choice as there are people who have successfully forsaken the homosexual lifestyle.

The legislation brought into play in this case regards homosexuality as legal, which is not the same as saying it is unchangeable, normal, natural or healthy. All of these are at the very least debatable, but the judge referred to them as self-evident truths. Given her views, her sympathy for the Way Out youth is understandable; what is more difficult to understand is why she did not refuse to accept this case.

Judge Hampel found it difficult to distinguish between a person’s belief and the desire or the power to compel others to accept it. She said the attitude of the Christian Brethren

denies same-sex-attracted people the same rights to live as who they are, to express their sexual orientation in the manner they choose, and to gather with others of the same sexual orientation and those personally associated with them, to discuss matters of particular significance to them by reason of their sexual orientation, as heterosexuals enjoy.[23]

The Christian Brethren did not and indeed could not stop homosexuals gathering together and discussing whatever they wished to discuss, what they objected to was homosexuals who believe homosexual sex is normal and healthy gathering together on their premises to raise awareness of these and related matters.

The Equal Opportunity Act does not apply “to anything done by a body established for religious purposes that conforms with the doctrines of the religion; or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of people of the religion”. Cobaw argued that Christian Youth Camps, although connected with the Christian Brethren, was not established for a religious purpose and is in reality a commercial enterprise and so the exceptions do not apply to them. The Christian Brethren Trust owns the camp site at Phillip Island. The Trust Deed under which it was established requires anyone on the site not to teach any doctrine or practice contrary to the “fundamental beliefs and doctrines” of the Open Brethren. One of the purposes of the camp is to conduct it for “the benefit of the community and in accordance with the fundamental beliefs and doctrines of the Christian Brethren and in particular the doctrines referred in the Trust Deed dated 1 August 1921”.

The trustees declared in a supplemental Trust Deed dated February 5, 1962, that the Adventure Resort land is a charitable purpose likely to further the objects of the Christian Brethren. Judge Hampel quoted extensively from Dixon J in the case of Roman Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne v Lawlor, who had to decide whether “a bequest to establish a Catholic daily newspaper was a gift for a charitable purpose”. Dixon said while charity has a much wider meaning in the community, legally its meaning when applied to religious bodies is restricted to overt matters like the teaching of religious doctrine, the provision of religious buildings and furnishings and “gifts to religious bodies orders or societies if they have in view the welfare of others”:

The law has found a public benefit in the promotion of religion as an influence on human conduct; but it has no standard by which to estimate what public benefit that order is produced indirectly or incidentally by means which, although they may be considered to contribute to the good of religion, are not in themselves religious and do not serve directly a religious object.

However, the legal definition of religion varies according to the circumstances. In the Scientology case four of the five judges (Mason ACJ, Brennan J, Wilson and Deane JJ) said that religion includes a belief in the supernatural and a code of conduct to give effect to that belief. The latter two added other criteria to these two.[24]

Judge Hampel said that the Christian Brethren witnesses expressed compassion for homosexuals.[25] Mr Rowe said his objection was to the promotion of the homosexuality. He said as a Christian he would find it difficult to turn anyone away. Although he would struggle with it a bit, he would accept bookings from lesbian couples with children, or same-sex families with children.[26] Judge Hampel after hearing the statements of the Christian Brethren witnesses concluded:

It is not part of the doctrines, beliefs or practices of the Christian Brethren that they avoid contact with people who do not share their religious beliefs. Nor is it part of their doctrines or beliefs that they must avoid contact with same-sex attracted people who do not share their religious beliefs. Nor is it a doctrine or belief of their religion that they are required to openly express their disapproval of same sex attraction when in contact with same sex attracted people.[27]

The Adventure Resort’s strategic planning document does not mention religion,[28] nor is the Christian Brethren religion referred to in its brochures or on its website.[29] Although Christian Youth Camps conduct Christian camps at Phillip Island, they allow a variety of secular groups to use their facilities.[30] Christian Youth Camps do not inquire into the sexual habits of people, nor do they check the proposed programs before accepting a booking.[31] On the basis of this evidence, Judge Hampel said she was not satisfied that Christian Youth Camps were established for religious purposes and therefore they could not take advantage of the exceptions in the Equal Opportunity Act.[32]

The Christian Brethren were trying to balance the love that Jesus commanded they should show for all people, with the biblical understanding that homosexuality was a sin. They distinguished between love for the sinner and opposition to the sin. This distinction was not acknowledged by the judge, who interpreted their friendliness and lack of intrusive scrutiny as a sign that that they did not really disapprove of homosexuals doing homosexual business at their camp site.

The Christian Brethren saw the Adventure Resort as a service to the community and as an expression of their faith. Those who used their premises, while they did not have to conform to the doctrines of the Christian Brethren religion, could not be allowed to openly propagate contrary doctrines while on their premises. The idea that homosexual practice was normal and healthy was communicated to Mr Rowe and on that basis he suggested that it might be better to look for another facility. In this he was acting in accord with the principles under which the campsite was established. In so far as the idea that ethics are not part of the Christian religion has penetrated into legal understanding, legal judgments and legislation, then to that degree the law is not factual, and no amount of precedent can make it so.

Secularists and legislation incorporating their ideas reject the notion that the religion of Christianity is about the whole of life. They do not see that Christ’s teaching is not restricted to a single compartment of life labelled “religion”, but is an attitude to all of life and is expressed in the way that life is lived and not just in intellectual belief. For them religion is about what goes on behind closed doors of the religious or what goes on in the hidden recesses of people’s minds. Once those beliefs are expressed in loving action then it ceases to be religion. This of course is directly contrary to what Christians have held throughout the centuries and which is expressed repeatedly in the Bible. For Christians religion that is not expressed in loving action is not religion.

As far as Judge Hampel was concerned, once having concluded that Christian Youth Camps were not established for religious purposes, the case was over. But she went on to demolish the rest of the Christian Brethren defence. Cobaw contended that the judge should regard the religion as the Christian religion and not the Christian Brethren religion.[33] The expert witnesses, the Reverend Dr Rufus Black and the Reverend Canon Dr Peter Adam after looking at the doctrinal statement in the Trust Deed found that the Christian Brethren was a Christian denomination,[34] and so Judge Hampel concluded that, “It is the doctrines of the Christian Brethren I must consider for the purposes of section 75(a) [of the Equal Opportunity Act], and the religious sensitivities of people of the Christian Brethren religion I must consider for the purposes of section 75(b).”[35]

The next matter to be settled is what the doctrines of the Christian Brethren were. Discussion began with the doctrines it held in common with the other Christian denominations. Dr Rufus Black, a Uniting Church theologian based at Ormond College in Melbourne, said that the doctrines are those enunciated by the ecumenical councils of the undivided church in the early centuries of the church’s existence,[36] the doctrines that were formulated at the Reformation and the doctrines in the Christian Brethren Trust Deed. The latter were:

Eternal sonship and deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, the full efficacy of his atonement only for the sins of whomsoever believeth: the resurrection, ascension and coming again of Our Lord Jesus Christ: the quickening, indwelling and sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit: the eternal punishment of the wicked and the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.[37]

He said the doctrines in the Trust Deed appeared to be a hybrid of doctrines shared with all Christians and those, such as the plenary inspiration of the Bible, shared with only some.[38] Canon Peter Adam agreed with this, but added that Christian doctrine included such things such as the command to love your neighbour, the practice of prayer, and the celebration of the Lord’s supper.[39] There were many things normative for Christians not included in the creeds and these matters were doctrines. In support of this he quoted references in the King James Version where doctrine referred to “any kind of teaching”.[40]

Dr Black said that the fact that marriage and sex were not mentioned in any of the early creeds of the church means that Christian teaching on these matters was not fundamental.[41] This was accepted by Judge Hampel.[42] But nearly all the creeds arose out of disputes, out of the need to define true doctrine in opposition to error. As the Christian view of marriage and homosexuality has been held by all branches of the church there was no need to incorporate it in creeds.

Justice Hampel looked favourably on a dictionary definition of doctrine that arose in the Wesley Mission case, “A creed or body of teachings … proclaimed by ecclesiastical bodies as true.”[43] She eventually settled on the narrowest interpretation of doctrine possible, those found in the Trust Deed, saying that there was “no credible evidence or argument in support of giving ‘doctrines of the religion” a wider meaning”.[44] As she saw it, Canon Adam was not a credible witness, despite his multiple theological qualifications. By conferring with the lawyers for Christian Youth Camps, putting material into his witness statement that was not his own,[45] straying outside his area of expertise and changing his witness statement several times, he had irretrievably damaged his independence and impartiality. Nor was she impressed with what she called the partisan and argumentative tone of his witness statements.[46] Having demolished his reputation as an independent witness, she was in a position to reject anything he said whether true or not and whether the evidence supported it or not. The question to be settled was, whatever the provenance of his witness statement, were the facts in it true or not?

The Christian Brethren Trust Deed included “plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures” as one of its doctrines.[47] It was thought by the lawyers for the Christian Brethren, that, given this doctrine, things said in the Bible would immediately qualify as doctrine. Dr Black, Canon Adam, and three current or retired Christian Brethren pastors at the trial said plenary inspiration meant that “the very words, not just the ideas of the text of scriptures are believed and acted upon”.[48] Dr Black took issue with plenary inspiration, stating that a literal reading did not allow for metaphors, figurative speech or the nuances of meaning words may have at a certain time in a particular culture.[49]

Canon Peter Adam’s statement included the words, “I am of the opinion that same-sex sexual relationships and the promotion of same-sex sexual relationships are not in conformity with the doctrine of plenary inspiration of the holy scriptures.”[50] Mr Rowe said the Bible taught that sex should only occur within marriage between a man and a woman. Passages in Leviticus, Romans, Corinthians and Timothy stated in strong terms that homosexual sex was against God’s plan for humanity.[51] Judge Hampel said that if Leviticus is used to support opposition to homosexuality, doesn’t that mean that the other laws in Leviticus, like the stoning of adulterers should be followed?[52] Canon Peter Adam and the Christian Brethren witnesses said that many of these laws were superseded by Jesus or only applied in the culture of the time.[53] Judge Hampel concluded from this that

the doctrine of plenary inspiration is not interpreted by adherents of the Christian Brethren religion as requiring a literal reading of all passages in the Scriptures. Whilst they differ from some other Christian denominations in which matters in the Scriptures they consider require a literal interpretation, the Christian Brethren too interpret some passages from the scriptures in the light of their understanding of the historical and cultural conditions prevailing at the time.[54]

Dr Black said Scripture was the source of doctrine,[55] but not everything in Scripture was doctrine.[56] In particular he did not believe that the doctrine “that homosexuality was forbidden by the scriptures and was against God’s will for humans was a doctrine or a part of the doctrine of plenary inspiration”.[57]Statements in Scripture about homosexuality were reflective of the contemporary culture and did not apply in all times.[58] Judge Hampel said, “It follows from the findings I have already made that it was not the doctrine of plenary inspiration but its interpretation and application to homosexuality or homosexual practices which was the reason why Mr Rowe refused the booking.”[59]

Judge Hampel said she was satisfied that the Christian Brethren witnesses ith who made statements sincerely believed that homosexual activity is prohibited in Scripture and is against God’s will as a consequence of their belief in plenary inspiration. However she was not convinced that opposition to homosexual behaviour was a Christian Brethren doctrine as she had defined the term.[60] She was less impressed with Dr Adam, who admitted that the sentence in his witness statement stating that homosexual activity was not in accord with the plenary inspiration of the Bible was not composed by him.[61] Its appearance for the first time in the third version of his witness statement,[62] and the fact it was identical in wording to earlier witness statements prepared by other witnesses counted against him.[63]

As she saw it, Canon Peter Adam was partisan. “He became in my view an advocate for the cause for which he had been retained and in which he believed.”[64] If strongly asserting something in which a person believes is partisan, than probably everyone taking part in the trial, including the judge, was partisan. Dr Black certainly was, and sometimes he was inaccurate. His characterisation of plenary inspiration falls into this category. Believers in it are quite capable of understanding metaphors; they do not, for example, believe that Jesus is a loaf of bread or a grapevine. They also understand what the culture was like in biblical times, that sheep were looked after differently, that insane people were allowed to run free and that lepers were prohibited from approaching ordinary people. Nor is his view, that the biblical opposition to homosexual behaviour was a transient part of culture, true. Opposition to it has been a part of nearly all human societies and in very few has it been a cultural norm. Greece was such a place. Paul grew up in a culture where the Greek language was spoken and where Grecian values were widely accepted. He had been a missionary to Greek cities where homosexuality was accepted. In a letter to Christians in one of these cities he wrote that those who regularly indulged in homosexual behaviour would have no share in the kingdom of God.[65] Paul’s opposition to homosexuality was counter-cultural, not culturally conditioned.

Objections to Dr Black’s evidence can be made on other grounds. He belongs to a church that is deeply divided over homosexuality. In 1997 a task force prepared a report entitled “Uniting Sexuality and Faith”. Some members wanted to normalise homosexuality. According to them, the Bible was historically and culturally conditioned, it arose in a patriarchal society and as they saw it “different interpretations of particular texts will be given by different people in differing situations”. This latter statement brought the report into the infinitely malleable world of postmodernism where truth can be whatever anyone wants it to be.

The tenth Assembly of the Uniting Church held in July 2003 revealed internal division. The Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress were opposed to the normalisation of homosexual practice. Rev. Sealin Gavrett said that for cultural reasons, “It is difficult for any of us even to discuss such matters in public, but we don’t believe homosexual practices are right or godly.” Resolution 84 in the Minutes included the following:

Recognising that within the Church, people of faith have wrestled with integrity to interpret Scripture in relation to the issue of Christian sexual ethics and have on some issues come to mutually exclusive positions. There are members of the Church who have reached the conclusion that “celibacy and faithfulness in marriage” is a faithful Christian standard for Christian sexual ethics and that there are members of the church who have reached the conclusion that “right relationships” as outlined in “Uniting Sexuality and Faith” is a faithful standard for Christian sexual ethics.

Thus the Assembly refused to decide one way or another, but left it to regional presbyteries to decide whether to appoint homosexual ministers to congregations. It must be one of the first occasions where mutually opposed ethical positions were tolerated in a single denomination.

Rev Dr Alan Crawford, a former moderator of the Uniting Church, said, “2003 is not a good year for those of us who believe that the ordination of homosexuals is an assault on the faith of the church and a failure to acknowledge the biblical witness.” Rev Gordon Moyes, minister of the powerful Wesley Mission in Sydney, said “a small gay lobby had ingratiated itself into the Church’s bureaucracy. The bureaucracy are not listening to the concerns of members.” The eleventh Assembly held in Brisbane in 2006 passed Resolution 108 which left the status quo intact. Opponents of homosexuality prior to the Assembly had gathered together into two bodies, “Evangelical Members within the Uniting Church” and “the Reforming Alliance”. Over 150 people from these groups met immediately after the Assembly. They declared the decisions on Sexuality and Leadership in the tenth and eleventh Assemblies “apostate” because they were a departure from the faith of the One Holy and Apostolic Church and agreed to establish “The Assembly of Confessing Congregations within the Uniting Church” which was formally inaugurated the following October at the Wesley Mission in Sydney.[66] They opposed the notion that “human sexuality can be determined by individuals in contradiction to the biblical witness of humankind’s creation as male and female in the image of God”. For ethical doctrine they looked to Scripture which is

neither deceived nor deceiving, neither confused or incoherent; in human form it is God’s testimony to the divine will and purpose … Therefore we reject any suggestion that this unique testimony can be interpreted by any “authority” other than the biblical witness itself through the work of the Holy Spirit.

Spokesman Rev. Stephen Estherby said they had the support of 80 per cent of people in the pews, but the other side had 80 per cent of the numbers of the Assembly. [67]

Linda Cusworth in an article headed “Six Reasons We Cannot Live in Peace” wrote,

Resolution 84 has placed the Uniting Church of Australia outside of communion and fellowship with other denominations. Every other Christian denomination in Australia adheres to the biblical understanding of “celibacy” in singleness and faithfulness in heterosexual marriage.[68]

The Uniting Church view lies outside the Christian understanding of homosexual practice, which was probably why Cobaw selected Dr Rufus Black as an expert witness and perhaps why Justice Hampel was so impressed by his evidence. She was only prepared to accept anything Canon Peter Adam said when it agreed with Dr Black, and so his broader definition of doctrine must be wrong.[69]

The Equal Opportunity Act does not apply when the reason for non-compliance “is necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of people of the religion”. Even though Judge Hampel said she was satisfied that all the Christian Brethren were opposed to homosexuality, she was not satisfied that their religious sensitivities would have been injured had they accepted the booking from Way Out. She said injury is more than offence, it means causing harm. “The harm must be real, and significant.”[70] She then went on to say that because opposition to homosexual practice is not enshrined in any Christian Brethren doctrinal statement their religious sensitivities could not be harmed.[71]

This is not a reasonable conclusion. Religious sensitivities go to the subjective reaction of the Christian Brethren to homosexuality, not about what may be recorded in their doctrinal statements. She had heard that the Christian Brethren took their cue from the Bible in this matter, believing as they do in its plenary inspiration. She had heard the strong opposition to homosexuality expressed by the Christian Brethren witnesses in her court room. The very reason for the trial, the reluctance of the Christian Brethren to accept the Way Out booking, is further evidence that this was a religiously sensitive issue. However, the scant attention the judge paid to the sensitivities of the Christian Brethren in this trial contrasted with the exaggerated concern she paid to the sensitivities of the Way Out young people. Because the Christian Brethren chose not to conduct an inquisition into the sexual proclivities of all applicants to their camp site, but only took action when matters were brought to their attention, this was seen by the judge as evidence that their sensitivities were unaffected by their behaviour.[72] Having reached that conclusion, it was unreasonable for the judge to reach the contradictory conclusion that the Christian Brethren imposed their beliefs on others. She said,

In our secular and pluralistic society, freedom of religious belief and expression carries with it acceptance of the right of others to hold different beliefs, and for those who hold different beliefs to be able to live in accordance with them. This is the essence of the difference between the freedom to hold one’s own beliefs, and the right to impose those beliefs on others.[73]

The allegation of belief imposition also fits oddly with her contention that opposition to homosexual practice was not one of their beliefs. In any case Mr Rowe had no power to nor did he attempt to impose his beliefs on anyone. He was merely stating his own beliefs and those of the organisation he represented. As the judge makes clear, the Christian Brethren in running their Adventure Resort kept their beliefs very much in the background. They only mentioned them when required to give a reason for their reluctance to take the Way Out booking. At no stage did Mr Rowe seek to convert Ms Hackney to his way of thinking, nor did Ms Hackney make any claim that he had. As well, the judge failed to see that belief imposition works both ways. The Way Out young people were seeking to impose their beliefs on the Christian Brethren.

Cobaw sought what they called modest damages of $5000 for unlawful discrimination.[74] Judge Hampel said, “Although it was made clear from the outset the primary relief sought by the complainant was declaratory relief, I am satisfied it is appropriate in all the circumstances to award compensation.”[75]

Although it seems evident that Judge Hampel handled this case conscientiously and meticulously evaluated all the evidence in the light of the law and legal precedent, I believe that she was not able to approach her work impartially. Her views about homosexuality exactly paralleled those of the homosexual community and were in opposition to those held by the Christian Brethren. It was not necessary for her in this case to give her personal opinion merely to apply the law impartially. Yet over and over again her personal views erupt into her judgment.

There were a number of points of decision in this case, and in every one of these she ruled in favour of Cobaw. On a number of occasions the judge could and almost certainly should have accepted the reasoning of Christian Youth Camps. It was quite obvious that the opposition to homosexuality was part of the teaching of the Christian Brethren but she played around with the evidence until she came up with what she considered a satisfactory definition of doctrine. Once she got the decision she wanted, she was able to pursue a relentless logic to the eventual outcome. She had very little understanding of the Christian view of homosexuality and her acceptance in toto of Rev Dr Black’s views leads one to suspect that it was governed by their similarity to her own and not because they were the accepted view in the Christian community as a whole, or of the Christian Brethren denomination.

The repeated assertion that the Christian Brethren were imposing their views on Way Out was not fair or factual. As she herself acknowledged, there was no attempt to vet programs or interrogate users of the site. However, once they knew that a group who were planned to conduct a program based on the assumption that homosexuality was natural and healthy, given their beliefs they took what was the only course possible. The exaggerated efforts by the judge to deny them the benefit of the exception clauses of the Equal Opportunity Act was unfair and was not in accord with the facts of the case.

The imposition of belief that so concerned Judge Hampel is now coming from the state of Victoria where secular beliefs are increasingly becoming enshrined in the law. It seems that legal actions like the one initiated by Cobaw and supported by an instrumentality of the state are going to be increasingly directed against Christians and other groups who do not agree with the state ideology. As I have already said, Judge Hampel shares this ideology. A similar case in Britain has resulted in Christian hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull being fined 3600 pounds for denying two male homosexuals accommodation for the night. They said it was not because of their sexuality, they would have acted the same to unmarried heterosexuals. The judge ruled that there was no essential difference between homosexual partnerships and marriage. The Bulls were faced with financial ruin by the requirement that they pay costs. Mr Starkey, a Gay Historian, said on the BBC Question Time on March 3, 2011, “It seems to me what we are doing is producing a tyrannical new morality that is every bit as oppressive as the old.” Another member of the panel, Michael Portillo, also sided with the Christians, saying we are seeing the emergence of a secular theocracy.           

Once “equality” morphs into an ideology, it has the capacity to become incredibly destructive, as the French Revolution and the various Marxist pogroms have shown. The current incarnation in the way the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act is interpreted, while it cannot match the past in disregard for human life, has every prospect of being just as intolerant of views different from its own. Christians who are not willing to change their beliefs to match those of the state ideology, as some in the Uniting Church have done, are going to find life increasingly difficult. There already are some and there will probably be more tools available for those who wish to engage in legal persecution of those who do not share their views.