A news article: New protections for Folau-like cases in draft religious discrimination bill

A radio interview with the Attorney-General: Federal Government unveils religious discrimination legislation on Radio National

Some legal analysis: The government has released its draft religious discrimination bill. How will it work?

A Christian response: Religious discrimination bill draft released

• Hajj 2019: live updates as pilgrims begin rituals in Makkah

• Hajj 2019: the Islamic pilgrimage to Makkah explained

• Every able-bodied Muslim is meant to do the Haj once in their lifetime. Why? What does it mean? And what do pilgrims actually do along the way?

... The very insistence on the one historical incarnation as a unique step in a course of events leading to the future Kingdom of God reveals the psychology of Western culture most clearly. It shows a mentality for which the present, real world is, in itself, joyless and barren, without value. The present can have value only in terms of meaning—if, like a word, it points to something beyond itself. This "beyond" which past and present events "mean" is the future. This the Western intellectual, as well as the literate common man, finds his life meaningless except in terms of a promising future. But the future is a "tomorrow which never comes", and for this reason Western culture has a "frantic" character. It is a desperate rush in pursuit of an ever-receding "meaning", because the promising future is precisely the famous carrot which the clever driver dangles before his donkey's nose from the end of his whip. Tragically enough, this frantic search for God, for the ideal life, in the future renders the course of history anything but a series of unique steps towards a goal. Its real result is to make history repeat itself faster and more furiously, confusing "progress" with increased agitation.

—Alan Watts, Myth and Ritual in Christianity. 1954

Felix Ngole wins appeal in victory for Christian freedoms

Here is the actual judgement by the Court of Appeal: PDF link

This is a key paragraph (Section 5, Paragraph 10, on page 3 in the document):

The University wrongly confused the expression of religious views with the notion of discrimination. The mere expression of views on theological grounds (e.g. that ‘homosexuality is a sin’) does not necessarily connote that the person expressing such views will discriminate on such grounds. In the present case, there was positive evidence to suggest that the Appellant had never discriminated on such grounds in the past and was not likely to do so in the future (because, as he explained, the Bible prohibited him from discriminating against anybody).