Public discussions of religion and homosexuality provoke intense moral and political anxieties. In fact, “gays v God” is a popular theme that seeps into TV shows, novels, and even legislation. Such a dichotomy, however, is unhelpful. Presenting faith and (homo)sexuality as sparring partners in some ill-defined boxing match erases the fact that the two are often intimately woven together.

We only need to look to the debates surrounding anti-discrimination laws and freedom of religion to observe just how polarised the two have become.

Recently, the federal government deferred its commitment to harmonise anti-discrimination laws. Instead, it opted to pass amendments to the sex discrimination act 1984 to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people from discrimination. This legislation aims to complement existing state and territory protections by prohibiting discrimination against LGBTI people accessing federal services in areas like aged care, health care, education and accommodation. The legislation is now awaiting the consideration of the Senate.

While this is a landmark step, the inclusion of faith-based exceptions undercut much of the legislation’s promise. These exemptions operate automatically at the whim of individual religious organisations.

Encouragingly, Commonwealth attorney general Mark Dreyfus flagged that the government would seek to prohibit discrimination in faith-based aged care services. We have to ask, though, why other community services funded by taxpayer dollars remain exempt from anti-discrimination laws, simply because they are operated by a religious provider?

Exemptions allow a student to be expelled from a publicly funded religious school just because he or she has “come out.” Teachers can be fired for disclosing that they are in a same-sex relationship. Being gay, or trans, becomes a matter of don’t ask, don’t tell. Legislation aimed at preventing discrimination becomes an instrument to facilitate secrecy, shame and stigma.

Most people would be forgiven for not appreciating the broad reach of exemptions. The insidious reality of these legislative loopholes means they do not come in the form of advertisements that say, “gay people need not apply.” In fact, they do not even need to be made public at all.

“Freedom of religion” tends to be the chorus against which sexual orientation or gender identity based discrimination is justified. Despite this, it is often unclear whose freedom of religion we are talking about.

The Australian Christian Lobby is often at the forefront of political debates when condemning same-sex relationships on biblical grounds. However, their views are far from universally held. For example, a recent Galaxy Poll identified that 53% of Christians supported marriage equality. So why do we give unelected individuals, who are usually privileged men, the social and political credence to represent the views of an entire faith?

Religious NGOs play a significant role in the provision of social services – and receive significant public funds to carry out this work. Many do so by embracing non-discrimination principles and the existence of exemptions offends the very work that they do. Uniting Justice, the social advocacy arm of the Uniting Church, asserts:

“When religious bodies are given a blanket exemption, there is no incentive for that body to ensure that it does not discriminate and no incentive to promote equality.”

Exemptions work to deny accountability. By carving out bureaucratic spaces free from oversight, religious groups can perpetuate further marginalisation or exclusion at the expense of their own constituencies. If the recent Royal Commission into child sexual assault has demonstrated anything, it is that even religious spaces cannot be immune from public scrutiny.

Freedom of religion is a basic human right. However, it cannot be used to shield religious institutions from perpetrating discrimination and abuse.

Religious exemptions falsely signal to LGBTI people that all religious organisations are prone to discrimination. It also ignores the fact that many sexual and gender minorities are religious and may wish to access social services affiliated with their faith.

Making religion and sexuality compete against each other may make for an interesting media or political spectacle, but it does little to assist those in need of legal protections.

As the Federation of Australian Buddhist Councils aptly exclaims:

“Religious organisations are perpetuating divisions and suspicion, when they should be leading the way in creating a fairer, more loving and compassionate community.”

Religion is neither homogenous nor monolithic. Concepts like sex, identity, and intimacy are not doctrinally fixed within scriptural categories like Islam, Hinduism and Christianity.

Instead of entrenching false oppositions between religion and sexuality, we should acknowledge the intersections between the two. If we do, then maybe our MPs will have the courage to pursue law reform that refuses publicly funded institutions the license to demean and discriminate against LGBTI people.