Victorian activists are insisting that Christians should be banned from renting public spaces for worship services because their views on homosexuality are at odds with local council diversity and inclusion commitments.

The argument goes like this:

The City of Stonnington in Melbourne’s south east has signed up to an LGBTQ+ inclusion plan.

Their decision to sign the Local Government Rainbow Pledge a couple of years ago was promoted with great fanfare all over social media.

The councillors – elected to ensure bins are emptied and potholes are fixed – promised to fly the rainbow flag, create an LGBTQ+ advisory committee, create an LGBTQ+ action plan, and participate in the annual LBGTQ+ Midsumma festival.

So far, so wonderfully inclusive.

But activists insisting on love and tolerance wanted to rain down fire and brimstone when they realised an Anglican Church, preaching a biblical view of sexuality, was meeting in a council-owned community centre.

How did a council leasing premises to Christians reconcile with council’s public infatuation with all things LGBTQ+?

Activists told the Herald Sun that their local council should be ‘ashamed’ over its decision to continue renting a council-owned building to a church that believed homosexuality was a sin.

‘Council shouldn’t spend all its time and money on these (LGBTQ+) policies if they are not going through with them,’ they argued.

Permitting Christians to meet on council property was hypocritical because the council had promised to promote ‘engagement, support, advocacy and partnerships for our LGBTQ+ community’.

Raising the stakes further, activists claimed the church’s weekly services in a council-owned building provided a litmus test of the council’s LGBTQ+ policy.

Would the council prove their commitment to inclusivity and diversity by excluding ratepayers who thought differently?

Or would councillors permit freedom of thought and thereby prove themselves to be narrow-minded bigots?

When the City of Stonnington decided, after a review, to allow Anglican ratepayers to continue leasing the ratepayer-funded hall, activists complained that councillors had ‘run for the hills’ rather than champion inclusion.

Outraged activists had good reason to believe they occupied the moral high ground.

The church had, after all, been slammed by none other than Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews who described its views supporting traditional marriage and the sanctity of life as ‘appalling’ and ‘hateful’.

The church in question just happens to be City on a Hill, which came to national attention last year when its chairman, Andrew Thorburn, was forced to resign as CEO of the Essendon Football club because his pastor once taught the Christian doctrine on sexuality and abortion.

One suspects the City of Stonnington administration may well have flirted with the idea of evicting the Christians for wrongthink. Tellingly, a council spokesperson said the church could continue using the public hall ‘at this stage’.

‘At this stage’ is hardly an enthusiastic endorsement of religious freedom.

If you were the pastor of City on a Hill, would you feel confident to read aloud the unpopular parts of the Bible this Sunday?

Or, in order to avoid having to meet under a tree next weekend, might you run your sermon by the commissars in council before you delivered it to the faithful, just to make sure the timeless Word of God conformed with the latest in Woke?

A council spokesperson said Stonnington was committed to creating ‘an inclusive and healthy community’ for all while ‘acknowledging the need to ensure ongoing development in all of its policies, processes, and plans’.

Christian ratepayers might ask how the council intends to permit freedom of religion while developing ‘policies, processes and plans’ for what seems like a religion of its own.

The spokesperson continued:

‘Based on our review to date, Council has determined that under the current conditions of use no action will be taken in relation to City on a Hill’s use of Phoenix Park Community Centre at this stage.’

It must be a relief for Christians to hear that ‘no action will be taken’ against them for holding non-approved views on sexuality … ‘at this stage’.

But ironically, it was not the Christians under fire that the council seemed intent on reassuring. The spokesperson continued:

‘Council is committed to working with the community and stakeholders to develop its LGBTQ+ Action Plan and how it will create an environment of respect and better outcomes for everyone.’

It sounded very much like activists were being reassured and Christians were being put on notice.

Christians may continue (at this stage) to use public facilities (with no action being taken) until council works out how to legally action its LGBTQ+ Action Plan.

To borrow a line from Daniel Andrews, it’s appalling and it’s hateful.

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in