Marriage Amendment Definition and Religious Freedom Bill 2017 in Political shit

I’m just posting this here, because it could potentially be historical. Or a dud. You know what this current government is like lol.

http://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/20272241_10155587008089105_2265269024399032320_n.pdf/Marriage-Amendment-Definition-and-Religious-Freedoms-Bill-2017-05.08.2....pdf?oh=445418abe66febe38d350dd2eb4fb14a&oe=59895758&dl=1

I had a bit of a read-through, but man bills are boring as batshit. Might as well be reading the book of Numbers in the Bible for all how exciting it is. And this is just an amendment to the marriage act, let alone the whole damn marriage act.

Basically, this is what is being presented to the House Of Representatives tomorrow at some point. Then I assume the senate? Dunno how it all works. I’m no legal expert but from what I can gather (like my disclaimer there?) but basically it’s changes to the wording in the act from ‘One Man And One Woman’ to ‘Two People’.
It also has amended/added sections saying that religious businesses can refuse to sell their services on the basis of religious grounds. Pretty much it.
Personally, I would have written, “Bigoted assholes don’t need to sell their (probably poisoned) cakes to lovely LBGT people if they don’t want to”, but you know, we have to be nice, don’t we?

I personally wouldn’t want to give my money to a bunch of loonies in the first place. Progressive people in progressive businesses, I am happy to give my hard-earned money to. And let’s face it, a lot of gays don’t have kids, so have a lotttttttttt of cash to splash on a wedding with lots of colours and real-life unicorns.

Now if this passes, I just need to find somebody to marry :P