Buried in a recent article in Quadrant magazine is a revealing insight into the mindset of those who want to retain laws that allow religious schools to expel – or refuse to enrol – LGBTQI students. “I’m uncomfortable about discrimination against ‘straight’ gay students, if you understand my meaning,” wrote Peter Smith, a regular contributor. “In my view a student’s sexual orientation should not, per se, be a factor in gaining entry to a religious school. On the other hand, a religious school should not have to put up with gay students flaunting their sexuality or with cross-dressing students.” This comment cuts to the heart of a question that can sometimes be difficult to answer: what is it, exactly, that some religious groups want when they demand schools retain the right to turn away LGBTQI students? It has been three years since both sides of politics more or less agreed that religious schools should lose this power. Despite this bipartisan agreement, nothing has changed. Instead, reform has been the victim of political trickery and obfuscation. There was an aborted attempt to legislate; then it was palmed off to the Australian Law Reform Commission for a review (which still hasn’t started). Now the issue is suddenly back on the table courtesy of a number of federal Liberal MPs who want immediate action, not another inquiry down the track. They want the relevant section 38(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act removed in exchange for their support for a Religious Discrimination Act (another long-standing promise of the Morrison government) that would give stronger legal protection to ordinary people expressing faith-based views. Yet a handful of small but vocal religious lobby groups are determined to stymie any reduction to the powers enjoyed by religious schools, even if it means scuttling a bill they otherwise support. Christian Schools Australia and the Australian Christian Lobby are among the groups now saying that if the price of the bill is the end of schools’ power to discriminate, they don’t want any of it. “They’re effectively choosing the sword over the shield,” says Liam Elphick, a discrimination law expert at Monash University. “They’d rather be able to discriminate against LGBTQI students and teachers than have protection from religious discrimination.”