The Dean Smith bill has been available for months. That wasn't on the ballot though. It was specifically stated that there was no draft bill specifically tied to the plebiscite. There was another draft bill released by Paterson towards the end of the plebiscite that was probably too far the other way (Dean Smith's bill has very miniscule protections, the Paterson bill had too many).
In my mind, a majority of people voting voted 'yes'. Therefore, a bill should pass. If 2 in 5 voted 'no' though, that's enough to suggest there should be some protections. Looking overseas, there's been issues with reduced freedoms of speech, expression and religion (Canada recently, as well as the UK). The issue is balancing personal freedoms against freedoms to discriminate.
What that looks like is probably for more informed minds than my own... To me though, a reasonable balance looks like this:
- Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate against people. Black, white, gay, straight, whatever. You should be able to be treated fairly and reasonably wherever.
- Businesses should be allowed to discriminate against events and causes. ALL events and causes. That means that a Muslim baker can not be forced to bake a gay wedding cake. It also means that a gay (or straight, but disagreeing) baker can not be forced to make a cake celebrating a 'no' side event. A marketing firm could not be sued for declining to offer their services to either side of that debate.
The upshot of that is that if, for example, a business is asked to make a birthday cake for a KKK member, you must serve them. If you're asked to make a cake supporting a KKK cause, you can decline.
