VCAT verdict :: gay discrimination and the brethern

I've been following this case for a while, from the ABC::

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has upheld a discrimination complaint made by a gay support group against a business run by the Christian Brethren church.

WayOut claimed it was barred from hiring the Christian Youth Camp's Philip Island Adventure Resort in 2007 because of its stance on homosexuality.
The resort has been ordered to pay the group $5,000 in compensation.

Interesting the Brethern used as their big gun Dr Peter Adams from Ridley College to no avail, from The Age::

Judge Hampel rejected the evidence of Christian Youth Camps' expert witness theologian Dr Peter Adam on the basis that "his independence and impartiality in respect of the evidence he gave was seriously compromised".
"He became, in my view, an advocate for the cause for which he had been retained and in which he believed," Judge Hampel said.

For me as a Christian the issues was supporting people with their sexuality. Certainly I would imagine Jesus supporting, and not discriminating any sexuality or culture. It will be interesting how the Brethren promotes its camp sites now...

Related articles

• Legal win for gay suicide support group (news.theage.com.au)

Christian Brethern and Discrimination, update :: 2

Its been fairly quiet regarding the vcat hearing on the Brethern's and their refusal to let the homosexual organization 'Way Out" to use their facitlities.

I have recently read an exellent article on Jesus and ant-discrimination talking directly on the above issue.

Associate Professor Andrew McGowan is Warden of Trinity College, The University of Melbourne and uses the story of the 'Good Samaritan' to illustrate his point, the full article is from the web site 'Eureka street'

It is remarkable then that Jesus takes the clear risk of using an unrepentant Samaritan as the embodied answer to the question 'who is my neighbour'.
Of course this does not mean that Jesus agreed with the Samaritans. It suggests he might have cared less about the risk he might 'promote' Samaritanism than about the need to promote an ethic of unconditional acceptance. It suggests Christians and others in the community might be called to take risks for the marginalised, rather than religiously to carry our orthodoxies with us down the other side of the road, ignoring those in need, lest we 'promote' something we disagree with.
Gay and lesbian youth are at greater risk from suicide and mental illness than from their own sexuality. They are at greater risk from religious and other forms of exclusion than from their own sexuality. It would be good for religious people to stop seeking refuge behind exemptions, and show that their contributions to such young people could be rather more than the law requires, instead of much less.